Lecture: Slavery & the Sectional Crisis
Lecture script · about 15–20 minutes spoken · Week 12
Opening
Think about a future lawyer asking who gets to speak in a hearing, or a social-work student who will spend a career listening to people whose stories were once ruled out of evidence. Both of them meet the question at the center of this lecture. When a country decides whether a person can be held as property, who decides, and who is never asked?
You've built the tools for this. In Week 3 you saw colonial law make slavery hereditary and racial. In Week 9 you met the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the line Congress drew at 36 degrees 30 minutes. In Week 10 you read a dictated narrative, told by one person and written by another. In Week 11 the war with Mexico ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, and the country gained vast western lands.
That land reopened the fight. In this lecture I'll follow it from 1850 to 1857. We'll read four documents: a law, a second law, an autobiography, and a Supreme Court decision. This is heavy material. Slavery was a system of violence, and I'll say so plainly. Take it at your own pace.
1. Cotton and the domestic slave trade
Start with a shirt. Before the shirt was cloth, and before the cloth was a bale of cotton on a dock. Follow that bale back far enough, and you reach a field in the Deep South and the people forced to pick it.
That's the cotton economy: the economy of the Southern states built on cotton grown by enslaved people, which by the 1850s made cotton the country's leading export. Every year, the people who held others in slavery had more money riding on it.
The cotton states wanted more workers than they had, and enslavers filled the gap by selling people. The domestic slave trade is the buying and selling of enslaved people inside the United States. It forced a vast number of people from the Upper South to the cotton states and separated families. Historians revise the count, so this course says it in words.
I want to name the system plainly. It ran on law, which made a child enslaved because the mother was. It ran on sale, and the threat of sale hung over every family. And it ran on force. Douglass's own book describes whippings he saw and suffered. It also reprints part of a speech he gave in Rochester in 1852, describing traders driving men, women, and children south to the market at New Orleans.
Pause and try this. Week 6 showed the Constitution protected the Atlantic slave trade only until 1808. Did the buying and selling of people inside the country stop then?
Think about which trade we're talking about.
Here's the answer. No, it kept growing, because the domestic slave trade inside the country is a different trade from the one across the ocean.
2. Resistance and the lives of enslaved people
Picture someone working for a boss they can't quit, under rules they never agreed to. They might work slowly on purpose. They might keep a part of their life, a family, a song, a prayer, that the boss can't reach. Now remember that for enslaved people, the boss also claimed their bodies and their children.
Resistance is the ways enslaved people opposed their enslavement, from working slowly and running away to keeping families and faith alive and, rarely, open revolt. People married and raised children that no law protected. They worshiped in their own way, sometimes in secret. Some ran away. Open revolt was rare, because the odds against it were so great.
They also left testimony. Some wrote their own life stories, and some told theirs to others. That testimony is primary evidence of their experience.
Pause and try this. Large revolts were rare. Does that mean enslaved people accepted slavery?
Think about where resistance could hide.
Here's the answer. No, because resistance ran through work, family, faith, and flight, and most of it was meant to stay hidden.
3. Douglass in his own words
There's a difference between a friend telling your life story to a reporter and you writing it yourself. In the first case someone else picks the words. In the second, every word is yours, and so is every silence.
My Bondage and Freedom is Frederick Douglass's second autobiography, published in 1855 after his Narrative of 1845. An autobiography is an account of a person's own life written by that person, so the words on the page are the author's own. The Avalon Project keeps the text, and it's the week's Primary Source Workshop document. Douglass was born into slavery in Maryland and escaped in 1838.
So read him as himself: a writer making an argument from his own life. When Douglass was a child in Baltimore, he heard the man who held him forbid his wife to keep teaching him to read. Douglass drew the lesson for himself: "knowledge unfits a child to be a slave." For him, reading became the road out. Later in the book he records the sum friends in Britain raised to buy his freedom, and the papers of manumission dated 1846. Manumission is the formal act by which an enslaver released a person from slavery, recorded in written papers.
Notice one silence. Douglass refuses to say how he escaped, so no one who helped him could be punished.
Here's the plain sentence. Douglass's book shows how he, in his own words and in 1855, explained what slavery took from him and how he saw the road to freedom. It's evidence of his experience and his argument, not of every enslaved person's life.
Pause and try this. Is My Bondage and Freedom a dictated narrative, like Sojourner Truth's?
Think about who put the words on the page.
Here's the answer. No, it's an autobiography, because Douglass wrote it himself rather than telling it to a writer.
4. The Compromise of 1850
Picture a family with five arguments going at once. One big deal to settle them all fails. Then someone splits it into five separate votes, and each one passes.
That's roughly how the Compromise of 1850 passed. California asked to join the Union as a free state. Henry Clay proposed one package, and the Senate turned it down. Then Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois passed the parts as separate bills, five statutes in all. The compromise admitted California as a free state, left slavery in the new territories to popular sovereignty, ended the slave trade, not slavery, in the District of Columbia, settled a Texas boundary, and passed a stricter fugitive slave law.
Pause and try this. Did the Compromise of 1850 end slavery in the District of Columbia?
Read the row word by word.
Here's the answer. No, it ended the slave trade there, and slavery in the capital went on.
5. A hearing without testimony
Imagine a hearing where only one side may speak. The other side stands in the room and listens to its fate.
The Fugitive Slave Act is the federal law of 1850 that set up hearings to return people claimed as escaped from slavery, barred the person claimed from testifying, and punished anyone who helped an escape. It's a federal statute, a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.
Let's walk the hearing as a procedure. A claimant brings a sworn paper. The person is seized and brought before a federal commissioner, an official a federal court appointed to hear these claims. The commissioner decides in a summary hearing, a quick hearing with no jury and few of a trial's protections. Then the person claimed tries to speak, and the act's own words stop them: "In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence". The act paid the commissioner 10 dollars when he sent a person south and 5 dollars when he refused. Anyone who helped an escape faced a fine of up to 1,000 dollars and up to 6 months in prison.
The plain sentence: the act shows the hearing Congress wrote into law in 1850, one in which the person claimed could not speak in evidence. It's evidence of the law's design, not of how the people it endangered answered it.
Pause and try this. In a hearing under this act, who was not allowed to testify?
Find the person with the most at stake.
Here's the answer. The person claimed as escaped, because the act barred that person's testimony from evidence.
6. Popular sovereignty on the ballot
Picture a settler walking to a polling place in a new territory. On the ballot is a question that will shape the place for good: will slavery be legal here? Now look at the line of voters.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act is the federal law of 1854 that created the Kansas and Nebraska territories, repealed the Missouri Compromise line, and left slavery there to popular sovereignty. Senator Stephen A. Douglas introduced it. Watch the spelling: the senator is not Frederick Douglass the writer.
Popular sovereignty is the rule that the settlers of a territory decide by their own vote whether slavery will be legal there, rather than Congress deciding for them. The act says each territory, as a state, "shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of the admission". But look at who counted. The act gave the vote at the first election to free white men over 21 who lived in the territory.
Settlers for and against slavery rushed into Kansas, and the fighting earned a name. Bleeding Kansas is the violence in Kansas Territory after 1854, when settlers for and against slavery fought to control the territory's government.
Pause and try this. Under the act's rule for the first election, could every adult in Kansas Territory vote?
Think about who the act let vote at that first election.
Here's the answer. No, because the act limited that first vote to free white men over 21, leaving out women, Black people, and the Native nations there.
7. The line versus the vote
Think about two ways a city could decide where a new building goes. The council could draw a zoning map once. Or each neighborhood could vote. The map might look the same either way, but the people deciding are completely different.
The Missouri Compromise line was the first kind of rule: a line Congress drew in 1820 at 36 degrees 30 minutes, north of which slavery was barred in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase. Popular sovereignty is the second kind, where settlers vote. The Kansas-Nebraska Act swapped the first for the second in 1854. Take 1820 from 1854 and you get 34 years. The National Archives says the line held for 34 years, so the archive and the chronology agree.
Pause and try this. Under the Kansas-Nebraska Act, who decided about slavery in Kansas: Congress, or the settlers?
Ask who held the decision.
Here's the answer. The settlers did, by vote, because the act repealed the line Congress had drawn.
8. Dred Scott's holding
Picture a family that lived for years where the law said no one could be enslaved, then was taken back where slavery was legal. They go to court and say those years made them free. Courts had ruled that way before.
That family was real. Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, sued for their freedom in St. Louis in 1846. Their enslaver, an army surgeon, had held them at Fort Snelling, in territory where slavery was barred. Their daughters, Eliza and Lizzie, were named in the suit. The case took 11 years.
Dred Scott v. Sandford is the Supreme Court decision of 1857 that held that Black Americans were not citizens under the Constitution and that Congress had no authority to bar slavery from a federal territory. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney read the majority opinion, the written explanation that speaks for most of the Court's judges. The opinion says Black Americans "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution".
Set Douglass beside Taney. In his Rochester speech of 1852, Douglass told his audience he stood outside the nation's celebration of independence. Five years later the Court's majority made that exclusion law.
Pause and try this. Was Dred Scott a ruling about one man only?
Read the holding, not the case name.
Here's the answer. No, it reached every Black American, who were held not to be citizens, and every federal territory.
9. Ordering the territories set
Picture four index cards on a desk, each with a year and a measure. Before you argue about any one, you put them in order.
The territories set is the course's four measures on slavery in the western territories, from the Missouri Compromise to Dred Scott v. Sandford, each with its year and what it did. In order: the Missouri Compromise in 1820, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, and Dred Scott in 1857. The gaps are 30 years, then 4, then 3. Add them and you get 37, the span from 1820 to 1857. And from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 to the Compromise of 1850 is 2 years.
Now read one question down the cards. In 1820 Congress decided, by a line. In 1850 and 1854, settlers would decide, by vote. In 1857 the Court said Congress had no authority to bar slavery from a territory at all.
Pause and try this. Which came first, the Kansas-Nebraska Act or Dred Scott?
Put the two years side by side.
Here's the answer. The Kansas-Nebraska Act came first, since 1854 is 3 years before 1857.
Closing
Let me pull it together. Cotton grown by enslaved people was the country's leading export, and the domestic slave trade tore families apart. Enslaved people resisted through work, family, faith, and flight. Douglass wrote My Bondage and Freedom himself, so you read him as author and witness. The Compromise of 1850 ended the slave trade, not slavery, in the capital. The Fugitive Slave Act barred the testimony of the person claimed. The Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed the line and left slavery to settlers' votes. A line drawn by Congress is not popular sovereignty. And Dred Scott reached every Black American and every territory, not one man.
Next in this module come the slide deck, the Readings and Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz. Then Week 13, The Coming of the Civil War, follows the crisis to secession.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com