Major Deal, Minor Attention

Elephant in the Room Overview

The final lesson of our "Causes of Civil War" unit was called Elephant in the Room. The expression "the elephant in the room" refers to when there is a huge topic or issue and nobody is bothering to discuss it. This had to do with slavery in the early 19th century. The essential question for this lesson is "How do we know the debate over slavery was the 'elephant in the room' for American politics in the early 19th century?". To start the lesson, we got a quick overview on the Missouri Compromise. The Missouri Compromise took place in 1820, and it created an even split of eleven slave states and eleven free states. This means slave states and free states have an even number of votes in the Senate. Also, all new territory north of the 36 degrees 30 minutes latitude line will be free in the future. 1849 held the Gold Rush in California. In 1950, California requests to join the United States as a free state. Henry Clay anticipates the inevitable controversy of the loss of balance between slave and free states. So he proposes a 5-part compromise. Our next task was to read this article on PBS titled "The Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act". With this, we needed to find these five parts of the compromise. The first part was that Texas would claim the land in dispute but, in compensation, be given 10 million dollars -- money it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico. This satisfied pro-slavery advocates. The second part was the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah being organized without mention of slavery. The decision would be made by the territories' inhabitants later, when they applied for statehood. This also satisfied pro-slavery advocates. The third part was the slave trade being abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted. This satisfied anti-slavery advocates. The fourth part of the compromise was California being admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed. This also satisfied anti-slavery advocates, because another free state exists. The final part was the Fugitive Slave Act. It required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. It denied a fugitive's right to a jury trial. (Cases would instead be handled by special commisioners -- commisioners who would be paid $5 if an alleged fugitive were released and $10 if he or she were sent away with the claimant.) The act called for changes in filing for a claim, making the process easier for slaveowners. Also, according to the act, there would be more federal officials responsible for enforcing the law. This satisfied pro-slavery advocates. We were split into groups of 2 or 3 to make timelines with the Timeline app. My group's timeline is below, along with descriptions of each event. To answer the essential question; the debate over slavery was the 'elephant in the room' because most decisions were made regarding states and territories, and not how it affected slaves. Slavery was obviously the elephant in the room, and it needed to be a bigger deal to politicians. Next, I will use other events to prove this, even though some politicians truly cared about slaves. 

More Proof of Ignoring Slavery

As you can see on the timeline, we also analyzed the Gadsden Purchase, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas, The Caning of Charles Sumner, The Dred Scott Decision, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, and John Brown's Raid. These events really helped support the idea that slavery was the elephant in the room, the thing that was an obvious issue but was not discussed enough. The Kansas-Nebraska Act took place in 1854 and got rid of the Missouri Compromise. Yes, the compromise that kept territories above a certain line free of slavery was gone. This already helps us answer the essential question. Clearly none of the politicians were worried about those new slave states. This act made it easier for southerners to expand slavery northward. Another important event was Bleeding Kansas. The Kansas-Nebraska Act led to Bleeding Kansas, which resulted in a lot of major violent outbreaks. The Caning of Charles Sumner proved that even the most civilized men could resort to violence because of slavery controversy. In 1856, Senator Charles Sumner delivered a two day speech called The Crime Against Kansas. The anti-slavery Republican attacked southerners in this speech for forcing slavery on territories. He also made bold insults against Senator Andrew Butler. Rep. Preston Brooks, a member of the House of Representatives and Butler's nephew, was angered by Sumner's remarks and was determined to defend the honor of the south. Two days after Sumner's speech, Brooks approached Sumner at his Senate desk and beat him with his cane. People across the south voiced their support for Brooks. Northerners were outraged. Another event was the Dred Scott Decision in 1857. Dred Scott was an enslaved man living in Missouri. He filed a suit against his owner, and argued that he and his wife were free because they had once lived with their owner in states and territories where slavery was illegal. The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 against the Scotts. We read about the effects of this decision here. There were 3 effects of the Dred Scott Decision. Slaves, because they were not citizens, were denied the right to sue in court. Enslaved people could not win freedom just by living in a free territory or state, and the Missouri Compromise ruled unconstitutional and all territories were open to slavery. This last effect really stood out to me because it's as if time was moving backwards. They made the Missouri Compromise in 1820 to keep certain states free, they got rid of the compromise in 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and then all territories are open to slavery? It makes no sense to me, further proving that politicians did not want to talk about how awfully slaves were treated, and proving that the debate over slavery truly was the elephant in the room for American politics in the early 19th century.  

Before and After the Kansas-Nebraska Act that made more states available to slavery.

Sources Used:

• The Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html.

• The Works of Charles Sumner, vol. IV (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1870- 1873), pages 125-249. 

• Finkelman. Dred Scott v. Sanford. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933t.html.

Slavery's Impact on America

Slavery is Entrenched

Slavery undoubtedly was a problem in society and always will be. But what exactly did slavery do to the American society? We started this unit talking about slavery and how it gradually became entrenched in society, both economically and politically. The first essential question I will focus on is "How did slavery become economically entrenched in American society by the early 19th century?". To start off, we read parts of The Founder's Constitution that mentioned slavery. The clauses from different articles basically stated what slaves can and cannot do, and what to do if they break any rules. A quote that stands out from the Constitution is from Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3. "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." This is saying that if a slave leaves the state they are working in, even if they go to a state that prohibits slavery, they are not freed, but will be returned to their owner. This really shows how strict things got if a slave dared to escape their assigned state. We also read an article titled "Cotton is King: Slavery is Entrenched in American Society". In the article I learned that people thought that slavery was declining. Slaves were revolting and escaping, people were beginning to get new revolutionary ideas to free their slaves and it seemed like slavery was about to be gone. Also, Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin really had an impact on slavery. The article says "Between 1792, when Whitney invented the cotton gin, and 1794, the price of slaves doubled. By 1825, field hands, who had brought $500 apiece in 1794, were worth $1,500. As the price of slaves grew, so, too, did their numbers. During the first decade of the nineteenth century, the number of slaves in the United States rose by 33 percent; during the following decade, the slave population grew another 29 percent”. This quote explains how just a simple invention that made it easier to get seeds out of cotton increased the number of slaves. We also used an interactive map  to help us get a better understanding on the dramatic growth of cotton production from 1790 to 1860, and also the spread of slavery across the northern and southern US during that 70 year period. By 1860, the South grew a startling amount of 2.28 billion pounds of cotton, up from about 1.5 million pounds in just 70 years. Also, the total slave population of the United States was estimated to be approximately 3,954,000. There were about 690,000 slaves in 1790. The maps below show how different the maps look in 1790 and 1860. Both maps are representing number of slaves. 

The maps also show how in 1790, most slaves were located in the Chesapeake and Carolina areas, and in 1860 the slave population was more spread out across the south. This is another way slavery was entrenched in society. It certainly sped up cotton production, which was obviously the major crop in these times. Northerners and southerners both depended on slaves for cotton. 

Morality of Slavery

In the next lesson on slavery, we focused on the morality of slavery. The two major parts and essential questions are "How does a system of slavery based on race affect human dignity?" and "What human characteristics does such a system tend to ignore?". To start off, we were put into groups and assigned a pro or anti slavery activist. We did this to find out what they were saying about the Antebellum Period (the period before the Civil War).  All the primary source documents we looked up are here. As one can tell, these people had different reactions to the Antebellum Period and different ways of approaching things. My group's activist was Frederick Douglass. In a speech the day after the fourth of July, he called Americans hypocrites for celebrating freedom and liberty for all when they are the nation that abuses slaves like no other. Douglass made the most sense to me and I agreed with his speech. A photo of him with important concepts from his speech is on the right. John Brown, a militant abolitionist, claimed that he was willing to murder for the sake of abolition movement. His goal was to cease weapons from the arsenal and give them to slaves to use against owners. He wanted them to start a revolt. Most people agreed with his cause, just not his violent ways of standing up against slavery. Another advocate, George Fitzhugh, a Virginian lawyer, was pro slavery. He believed that all labor should be enslaved. Fitzhugh also said that free people had more worries and responsibilities than slaves. Slaves were in a 'better position' because they were being taken care of and didn't have to worry about money, clothes, food, or finding a job. What's wrong with his theory is that most slaves were very mistreated, not treated better than free people, and he ignores the idea of them having relationships or a family. We then read an article comparing slavery in Futa Jallon, Africa to slavery in Natchez, Mississippi. This article taught me a lot, like how in Futa Jallon only non-muslims could be enslaved and the sale of Muslims was strictly prohibited. Also, children born of a free father and an enslaved mother were free and could reach the highest echelon of political power. The slaves could hold property and worked in their fields and gardens two days a week to feed themselves. Natchez, MS was a different story. All slaves "lacked full control over their lives". Slaveholders tried to dehumanize them, and the slaves that chopped out old plants completed between four and seven miles of cotton rows each day. After that, we watched Prince Among Slaves, a PBS docu­-drama that depicts the true story of Abdul Rahman. My classmates talked about the film on TodaysMeet.com and the transcript of that can be found here. Rahman was the son of the king of Futa Jallon. He was given command of two thousand men to fight their enemies. He ended up getting ambushed and captured by another African group on his way home from the battle. After being forced to walk 100 miles to the coast, he was sold to white slave traders for rum, guns, and gun powder. He had to go on a cramped and dirty slave ship to go to Natchez, Mississippi. He tells his slaveowner Thomas Foster that he was a prince at home and nobody believes him, and he earns the nickname Prince. Prince ran away, but realized he couldn't get his old life back. He returns back to Natchez and Foster does not punish him. Prince ends up making his plantation one of the best producing plantations, due to his knowledge on cotton. Politicians ended up freeing Prince due to newspaper articles being printed about him that were written by Marshalk. Prince wanted to raise enough money to buy his wife and children's freedom. People start to realize he is not Moorish and withdraw their support. This partly answers the essential question, it proves everything was based on race. He ended up leaving America without his children and finally arrives back in Africa on March 18, 1829. He died at the age of 67. This film and all of our resources proved to us that race affected everything, and slaves were not really treated like the human beings that they were.