1820: Land Act of 1820

From Bensonwiki

[edit]

Description

The ideology of Republicanism spurred a series of land policies during the first half of the 19th century. Republicanism was based on the spread of virtue, and this belief caused the federal government to search for ways to extend virtue to as many people as possible. The solution it devised was the sale of the newly acquired lands in the West. Since owning land equated virtue, selling as much land as possible to as many people as possible as quickly as possible would be an efficient spread of virtue. The Land Act of 1820 is one of the federal land policies used to achieve this spread of virtue. Passed on March 9, 1820 in response to the War of 1812, the act reduced the price of land from $2 per acre to $1.25 per acre. The minimum purchase was also reduced to 80 acres.1 It also eliminated the credit system to prevent the federal government from having to pay for losses from unprofitable lands.2 In addition, it stipulated that lands that were not paid for would go back up for public sale.3 As a result of the elimination of the credit system, many settlers could not afford to buy land. This led to the growing problem of squatters—individuals who had no title to the land but resided on it anyway.4 Measures would be taken to remedy this growing problem through the Land Acts of 1830 and 1841. The act was an important stepping stone between expediting land sales and the new policies of 1830 and 1841.

[edit]

Related Events:

1812: War of 1812 1800: Land Act of 1800 1830: Land Act of 1830 1841: Land Act 1841

[edit]

Sources:

1 Paul Finkelman, ed., Encyclopedia of the United States in the Nineteenth Century, s.v. "Federal Land Policy," (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2001), 458.

2 Ralph Berens, ed., Chronicle of America, (Mount Kisco, New York: Chronicle Publishers), 271.

3 James Monroe, "An Act making further provision for the sale of Public Lands," The National Register, 29 April 1820; 9, 18, APS Online.

4 Finkelman, ed., Encyclopedia, 458-459.

Retrieved from "http://facweb.furman.edu/~corth/wiki/mediawiki-1.3.9/index.php?title=1820:_Land_Act_of_1820"

1820: Missouri Compromise

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description:

As the United States expanded, southern politicians became greatly concerned with making sure that the representation of slave states in Congress remained equal with that of free states. One of the first states to cause a serious debate over this issue was Missouri. The solution to the Missouri problem was the famous Missouri Compromise, passed on March 15, 1820. Henry Clay, then Speaker of the House and a slave owner himself, stated that Maine would not be allowed to become a state unless Missouri entered as a slave state.1 Illinois senator Jesse B. Thomas devised the compromise in February 1820. Under the compromise, Missouri entered as a slave state, Maine entered as a free state, and slavery was prohibited in new states above the 36˚30’ line.2 The House and Senate debated about which version of the compromise would be accepted. Ultimately, the Senate version won out. The House then voted 90 to 87 to make Missouri a slave state and 134 to 42 to make the Louisiana Territory free.3


The Missouri Compromise is significant as a precedent in the debate over slavery in new states. It influenced insurrectionists such as Denmark Vesey, causing slaveholders to seek gag rules and other forms of control. The same debate would also spark such legislation as the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act.4


Its timing was key. Without the urgency of solving the problem of slavery extension, the compromise might not have existed, and Maine and Missouri’s statehoods might have been further delayed.

Related Events:

1820: Maine becomes 23rd state 1821: Missouri becomes 24th state 1822: Denmark Vesey conspiracy 1850: Compromise of 1850 1854: Kansas-Nebraska Act

Sources:

1 Paul Finkelman, ed., Encyclopedia of the United States in the Nineteenth Century, s.v. "Missouri Compromise," (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2001), 352.

2 Ibid.

3 Library of Congress, "Missouri Compromise," http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html#American [accessed 20 November 2006].

4 Finkelman, 353.

Additional Sources:

"Compromise on the 'Missouri Question,' Niles' Weekly Register (1814-1837), 26 February 1820; 17, 442, APS Online.


1820: Maine Becomes 23rd State

From Bensonwiki

Description:

In 1820, Maine became the 23rd state in the Union. Its fight for statehood had been long fought. Maine had been a part of Massachusetts since the 1650s. An independence movement began in 1800.1 The movement was led by William King, John Holmes, and William Pitt Preble. These men were Jefferson Republicans who were angered by absentee landowners, most of whom were Federalists from Massachusetts.2 Chief among the causes for the fight for separation was the fact that the government in Boston did not share the same concerns as the citizens of Maine. It did not sympathize with their requests for internal improvements and low tariffs.3 The vote for independence occurred in 1819, but the issue of statehood became part of a larger problem—that of Missouri.4 Southern politicians became increasingly concerned with maintaining a balance of slave and free states in Congress. Because of this concern, the Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820. Maine became a state through this act. Maine entered as a free state in 1820, and Missouri followed in 1821 as a slave state. Congressmen debated about determining Maine’s representation. They discussed the constitutionality of subtracting representatives from Massachusetts to represent the new state. Ultimately, the decision was left up to Massachusetts and Maine.5 The timing of Maine’s vote for statehood is crucial. It was a perfectly timed solution to a hotly debated problem. The need for a free state to balance Missouri’s slave status was an advantage in Maine request for admission.

Related Events:

1820: Missouri Compromise 1821: Missouri becomes 24th state 1822: Denmark Vesey Conspiracy

Sources:

1 Paul Finkelman, ed., Encyclopedia of the United States in the Nineteenth Century, s.v. "Maine," (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2001), 247.

2 Ibid.

3 James Truslow Adams and Coleman, R.V., eds., Dictionary of American History, Vol. III, s.v. "Maine," (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1940), 326.

4 Finkelman, Encyclopedia, 248.

5 "Admission of Maine to the Union," The National Register, 22 January 1820, p. 9, 4, APS Online.


1820: Maine Becomes 23rd State

From Bensonwiki

Description:

In 1820, Maine became the 23rd state in the Union. Its fight for statehood had been long fought. Maine had been a part of Massachusetts since the 1650s. An independence movement began in 1800.1 The movement was led by William King, John Holmes, and William Pitt Preble. These men were Jefferson Republicans who were angered by absentee landowners, most of whom were Federalists from Massachusetts.2 Chief among the causes for the fight for separation was the fact that the government in Boston did not share the same concerns as the citizens of Maine. It did not sympathize with their requests for internal improvements and low tariffs.3 The vote for independence occurred in 1819, but the issue of statehood became part of a larger problem—that of Missouri.4 Southern politicians became increasingly concerned with maintaining a balance of slave and free states in Congress. Because of this concern, the Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820. Maine became a state through this act. Maine entered as a free state in 1820, and Missouri followed in 1821 as a slave state. Congressmen debated about determining Maine’s representation. They discussed the constitutionality of subtracting representatives from Massachusetts to represent the new state. Ultimately, the decision was left up to Massachusetts and Maine.5 The timing of Maine’s vote for statehood is crucial. It was a perfectly timed solution to a hotly debated problem. The need for a free state to balance Missouri’s slave status was an advantage in Maine request for admission.

Related Events:

1820: Missouri Compromise 1821: Missouri becomes 24th state 1822: Denmark Vesey Conspiracy

Sources:

1 Paul Finkelman, ed., Encyclopedia of the United States in the Nineteenth Century, s.v. "Maine," (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2001), 247.

2 Ibid.

3 James Truslow Adams and Coleman, R.V., eds., Dictionary of American History, Vol. III, s.v. "Maine," (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1940), 326.

4 Finkelman, Encyclopedia, 248.

5 "Admission of Maine to the Union," The National Register, 22 January 1820, p. 9, 4, APS Online.


1820: Joseph Smith Vision

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description:

Joseph Smith Jr. was born in Vermont in 1805. He and his family moved to Palmyra, New York in 1816 and lived amidst the religious fervor of the Second Great Awakening.1 Smith was conflicted about religion throughout his teens. In the spring of 1820 (sometime around April), Smith, then fourteen years old, experienced a vision while praying.2 In his vision, he was forgiven of his sins and told not to join any other churches and to await further instructions. Between 1823 and 1827, Smith was visited by Moroni, an angel. It was Moroni who told Smith where to find the golden plates that contained what was to become the Book of Mormon.3 Smith founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 6, 1830. Eventually, Smith and his followers began to travel in search of a permanent settlement. One place they tried to settle was Missouri. They were not, however, welcomed with open arms. The governor of Missouri, Lilburn Boggs, ordered them "to leave the state or face expulsion," inciting the Mormon War of 1838-1839.4 Smith surrendered, and was sent to jail along with other leaders, paving the way for Brigham Young to take over leadership duties.5 They eventually settled in Utah.

Related Events:

1830: Publication of the Book of Mormon 1844: Joseph Smith murdered 1847: Salt Lake City settled

Sources:

1 Paul Finkelman, ed., Encyclopedia of the United States in the nineteenth century, s.v. "Mormonism," (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2001), 363.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid, 364.

4 Malcolm J. Rohrbough and Nash, Gary B., eds., Encyclopedia of American History: Expansion and Reform 1813 to 1855, Vol IV, s.v. "Smith, Joseph, Jr.," (New York: Facts on File, 2003), 323.

5 Ibid.

Additional Sources:

"Mormonism," Christian Advocate and Journal and Zion's Herald, 22 March 1833; 7, 30 APS Online.


1820: Treaty of Doaks Stand

From Bensonwiki

Description:

The treaty of Doak’s Stand, signed on October 18, 1820, was a treaty concerning the removal of the Choctaw from Mississippi. Inspired by pro-removal letters, Jackson and Calhoun sought to obtain Choctaw lands in Mississippi and relocate the tribe to the Arkansas Territory.1 The treaty was negotiated by, among others, Andrew Jackson, General Thomas Hinds, and Choctaw chiefs Mushulatubbee and Pushmataha at a tavern owned by Josiah Doak.2 The treaty outlined the new borders between the Choctaw and the United States. In addition, it provided that each Choctaw warrior that left be given "a blanket, kettle, rifle gun, bullet moulds and nippers, and ammunition sufficient for hunting and defence, for one year."3 It also reflected the ideology of Republicanism. The treaty stated that the newly defined borders would remain in effect until the Choctaw were deemed civilized enough to become United States citizens.4 Accordingly, it outlined provisions for selling land to the Choctaw to be used for schools.

This important removal treaty is typically overlooked in favor of the court cases involving the Cherokee. Perhaps this occurs because the issue of removal was much more contested by the Cherokee than the Choctaw. Regardless, the Treaty of Doak’s Stand is an important milestone in the process of Indian removal and an overlooked precursor to the Trail of Tears.

The treaty was the result of a pro-removal government and a growing desire to expand westward. The Choctaw chiefs were eager to sign the treaty, making them a likely candidate for removal.

Related Events:

1830: Indian Removal Act 1831: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 1832: Worchester v. Georgia 1836: Treaty of New Echota 1838: Trail of Tears

Sources:

1 James Masterson Brown, Searching for the Bright Path: The Mississippi Choctaws from Prehistory to Removal, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999), 89.

2 Ibid, 90.

3 Clive Parry, LL.D., ed., The Consolidated Treaty Series, Vol. LXXI: 1820-1821, (Dobbs Ferry, New York: Oceana Publications, Inc., 1969), 271.

4 Brown, Searching, 90.


1821: Denmark Vesey Begins Organizing Slave Revolt

From Bensonwiki

In 1821 Denmark Vesey began organizing a large-scale insurrection of slaves and free blacks in and around Charleston, South Carolina. Forty years earlier a fourteen-year-old Vesey was bought in St. Thomas by a slave trader named Captain Joseph Vesey. His epilepsy made him unfit for plantation work so he became the captain’s personal servant. He remained a slave until 1800 when he won a lottery and bought his freedom. With the remainder of his winnings he set up a carpentry shop and became a successful and respected free blackman in Charleston. Having been the personal servant of a slave trader Vesey was well acquainted with the horrors of slavery. As a minister of a black Methodist Church in Charleston, Denmark began preaching against slavery. Whites closed the church in 1820. In 1821 Vesey’s home on Bull Street became a meeting place where plans were made for a large-scale revolt involving upwards of 9000 slaves.

Related Events

1822: Denmark Vesey Plot Uncovered, 1831: Nat Turner Rebellion

Sources

Richard L. Paquette, “Jacobins of the Lowcountry: The Vessey Plot on Trial” (The William and Mary Quarterly 59, no. 1 January 2002, accessed 3 November 2006); available from http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.hitorycooperative.org/journals/wm/59; Internet.

Robert Starobin, Denmark Vesey: Slave Conspiracy of 1822 (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall), 1970.


1821: ACS Purchases Land in Western Africa for African Americans

From Bensonwiki

In 1815 African American Paul Cuffee helped a group of African American freed slaves return to Sierra Leone in Western Africa. This small but successful venture led white leaders to form the American Colonization Society (ACS) in 1817. In 1820 and in 1821 the ACS sent its first groups of freed slaves to Sherbro Isiland in Sierra Leone. The area was swampy and many colonists died from disease. Realizing that the colony must be moved the ACS sent Dr. Eli Ayres along with U.S. Naval Lieutenant Robert Stockton to purchase new land around Cape Mesurado north of Sierra Leone. In 1821 a tract of land 36 miles long by 3 miles wide was acquired from local chiefs for what amounted to $300 worth of goods. The remnants of the Sherbro Island colony moved here and started the settlement Christopolis which was later renamed Monrovia. The colonization of early Liberia was a Christian venture as can be seen in this quote from an evangelist colonizer, “Yea, may your colony grow and blossom like a garden of God, and continue to prove a useful instrument in the hand of Providence, to beat the path for the kingdom of our adorable Redeemer, amongst the benighted and wretched population of Africa.” 1 The entire area was named Liberia. Later that decade more and more Southern States started their own colonization societies in an attempt to reduce their population of freed slaves.

Footnotes

1 THEOPHILUS BLUMHARDT, "Letter from the Rev. Dr. Blumhardt," African Repository and Colonial Journal (1825-1849), Washington: Feb 1828. Vol. 3, Iss. 12; pg. 361, 4 pgs, 4. [1] (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=429809571&sid=8&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP)

Related Events

1831: Nat Turner Rebellion , 1841: Amistad Decision , 1841: Anti-Slavery Lecture Frederick Douglass , 1845: Frederick Douglass Publishes his Autobiography

Sources

J. ASHMUN, "Concise History; Of Establishments recently made by the Colonial Government of Liberia, on the Coast of Africa," African Repository and Colonial Journal (1825-1849), Washington: Jul 1827. Vol.3, Iss. 5; pg. 143, 7 pgs, 1-7. [2] (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=429808651&sid=8&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP)

Elwood D. Dunn, Historical Dictionary of Liberia (Metuchen: Scarecrow Press, 1985)

J. Gus Liebenow, Liberia: the Quest for Democracy (Bloomington: Indian University Press, 1987), 1-30.

Alex S. Wadsworth, “Captain Wadsworth’s Letter” [letter on-line] (1820, accessed 6 November 2006); available from http://memory.loc.gov./cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/murray:@field (DOC…; Internet.


1821: 1821 Adams–Onis Treaty Ratified

From Bensonwiki

In February, 1819 the Adams-Onis Treaty was agreed to in Washington D.C. The Adams-Onis Treaty gave control of Florida to the U.S. and established a boundary between U.S. land acquired in the Louisiana Purchase and Spanish lands in Texas. U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams and foreign minister Luis de Onis foreign Minister of Spain negotiated the Treaty. The United States received very favorable terms in this treaty because Spain realized that it did not have the resources to maintain its control of Florida and was going to lose control of it anyway. In 1818 this reality was made evident when Andrew Jackson in his fight with Indians in Southern Georgia crossed into Florida and captured a number of Spanish forts. During May of 1818 Jackson captured Pensacola the capital of Spanish Florida causing the Spanish to flee.1 Monroe was looking to expand into Florida and Oregon and knew he could put the Spanish at a diplomatic disadvantage by exposing their vulnerability.2 The Spanish sacrificed Florida for five million dollars in order to prolong their grasp on Texas.3 The Treaty was ratified in Washington in 1821 and the U.S. troops took control of Florida July 10, 1821.

Footnotes

1 Charles E. Hill, Leading American Treaties (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1922), 162.

2 Ibid, 152.

3 Ibid, 172.

Related Events

Sources

Charles Bevans, ed. “Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819,” Treaties and other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949 (Washington: U.S. Government Print Office), 1976.

Charles E. Hill, Leading American Treaties (New York: The Macmillan Company), 1922.


1821: 1821 John Marshall Reinforces Power of Federal Courts in Cohen v. Virginia

From Bensonwiki

John Marshall was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by John Adams in 1800 and became Chief Justice in 1801. During his tenure on the Supreme Court there was a battle for judiciary power between the U.S. Supreme Court and the state supreme courts. Federalists like Marshall believed there needed to be a strong central judiciary. He felt that in matters involving the constitution the federal judiciary had to have the last word. Chief among Marshall’s opponents was Spencer Roane, Chief Justice of the Virginia Court of Appeals from 1803 until 1822. 1 In 1821 with Cohen vs Virginia the conflict between Roane and Marshall reached its peak. The state of Virginia convicted the Cohen brothers of illegally selling lottery tickets. The brothers appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Marshall did not overturn the state ruling, but aggressively defended the right to review the case. Marshall and Roane argued their opposing opinions in a series of published articles. Roane argued that, “The judgment now before us [ Cohen v. the State of Virginia] completely negatives the idea, that the American States have a real existence, or are to be considered in any sense sovereign and independent states” 2. Marshall insisted on the right to review such cases and the end result of the Marshall era was an increase in power of the Federal Judiciary.

Footnotes

1 Leonard Baker, John Marshall: A Life in Law ( New York: Macmillan, 1974), 107.

2 Ibid,108.

Related Events

1831: Cherokee vs Georgia

Sources

Stanley Kutler, John Marshall (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc., 1972).


1821: 1821 Benjamin Lundy Publishes First Issue of the Genius of Universal Emancipation

From Bensonwiki

Benjamin Lundy was born a Quaker in 1789 in New Jersey. His Quaker upbringing made him a strong opponent of slavery. His political, social and religious views were also formed during a period of strong controversy involving slavery. Lundy could see there was a battle for the social consciousness of America. He entered the battle with the publishing of the abolitionist newspaper, The Genius of Universal Emancipation. The first issue was published in the Quaker community of Mount Pleasant, Ohio in June of 1821. 1 Lundy described his paper as, “…an active instrument in the attempt to abolish that cruel and disgraceful system [slavery] in the American Republic.” 2 By 1824 the paper had moved to Baltimore Maryland where the paper became renowned. In 1829 William Lloyd Garrison joined Lundy at The Genius. 3 Garrison was very aggressive in his condemnation of slavery, much more so than Lundy of The Genius. Garrison from 1831-1865 published The Liberator, the most famous abolitionist newspaper of the day.

Footnotes

1 Merton L. Dillon, Benjamin Lundy and the Struggle for Negro Freedom (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1966), 45.

2 Ibid, 46.

3 John Jay Chapman, William Lloyd Garrison (Boston: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1921), 36.

Related Events

1831: Garrisons Liberator, 1845: Cassius M. Clay’s The True American

Sources

Merton L. Dillon, Benjamin Lundy and the Struggle for Negro Freedom (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1966)

John Jay Chapman, William Lloyd Garrison (Boston: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1921)


1822: Austin Establishes Settlement in Texas

From Bensonwiki

With Westward expansion on the rise in the 1820s, Moses Austin, of the Arkansas territory, saw an opportunity in the Mexican territory of Texas. In 1821, he was given permission by the Mexican Governor to settle three hundred families in Texas. However, Moses Austin died before he could see his dream fulfilled. His son, Stephen Austin, continued the work of his father, and in 1821 December, he and a group of settlers crossed over the Brazos River into Texas. At the beginning of 1822, the colony was established and continued to flourish as news of the settlement circulated. Though Governor Martinez had approved the settlement in a letter to Austin in 1821 August, it became evident that to receive official authorization, Austin would have to travel to Mexico City. On 29 April 1822, he arrived in Mexico City where the political climate was largely unstable. While his colony continued to attract more settlers, external occurrences and turnovers in leadership resulted in the delay of his colonization approval by the Mexican Congress. On 26 November, the Congress finally passed a bill granting Austin permission to settle in Texas. However, the bill was not signed by the Mexican Minister of Relations until the following February. 1

Sources

1 Eugene C. Barker, "Stephen F. Austin," The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 5, no. 1 (June 1918), 20-23. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-391X%28191806%295%3A1%3C20%3ASFA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9, Accessed 2 November 2006]; Eugene C. Barber, "Notes on the Colonization of Texas," The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 10, no. 2 (September 1923), 143-147. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2992%28200121%2986%3A2%3C132%3A%22WGANR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B, Accessed 2 November 2006], Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, Empresario of Texas,(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 109-125.

Related Events

1830: Mexico Outlaws American Immigrants, 1836: Texas Convention of 1836 and the Declaration of Independence, 1836: Battle of the Alamo, 1836: Goliad Massacre, 1836: Battle of San Jacinto, 1845: Texas Becomes the 28th State


1822: Florida Becomes a U.S. Territory

From Bensonwiki

On 30 March 1822, Congress passed an act establishing the Territory of Florida. Though Florida was officially ceded to the United States by the Spanish government in the Adams-Onis Treaty on 2 February 1819, the treaty was not ratified by the American Government until 22 February 1821. After the treat was ratified by Spain and the United States, Florida was occupied by American military forces under the command of General Andrew Jackson, and was divided into two sections, East Florida and West Florida. [1] By autumn 1821, Jackson was ready to return to his home state of Tennessee. On 13 November, he requested that President Monroe relieve him of his duties as Commissioner of Florida and assured him that an acting government had been established. [2] The following spring, Congress passed an act establishing the Territory of Florida under the provisions that it establish a Governor, a Secretary, and a Legislative Council of thirteen men. [3] It was not until June 1822 that the first official territorial Governor, William P. DuVal, was appointed. The following month, Governor DuVal and his legislative council convened in Pensacola. [4] For the next twenty-three years, Florida remained under territorial status until it was finally introduced into the Union as the 27th state of the United States of America.

Sources

[1] Brian W. Beltman, "Territorial Commands of the Army: The System Redefined but Not Perfected. 1815-1821," Journal of the Early Republic, 11, no. 2 (Summer 1991), 201-202. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0275-1275%28199122%2911%3A2%3C185%3ATCOTAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K, Accessed 4 November 2006]

[2] "Governor Jackson to the President," The Territorial Papers of the United States. Volume XXII, The Territory of Florida, 1821-1824, (Washington, United States Government Printing Office, 1956), 274-275.

[3] "An Act Establishing the Territory of Florida," The Territorial Papers of the United States. Volume XXII, The Territory of Florida, 1821-1824, (Washington, United States Government Printing Office, 1956), 389-399.

[4] "Florida," Nile's Weekly Register, 23, no. 574 (14 September 1822), 23. [American Periodical Series: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=811837962&sid=2&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 4 November 2006]

Related Events

1821: Adams-Onis Treaty Ratified; 1845: Florida Becomes 27th State


1822: Denmark Vesey Plot Uncovered

From Bensonwiki

On 25 May 1822, the Denmark Vesey rebellion was uncovered after Devany, a house slave, revealed the plot to his master. Within six days, three slaves were arrested regarding the alleged plot, one of whom conceded plans to the authorities. [1] When the instigator of the rebellion, Denmark Vesey, learned of this, he moved the date of the insurrection from 14 June to 16 June. [2] Charleston city Intendant James Hamilton presented plans of the insurrection to Governor Thomas Bennett who quickly commissioned five military companies to protect the city and its white’s citizens. [3] On 16 June, Vesey sent for a courier to bring the Goose Creek slaves into Charleston, but the courier would never reach them. [4] The arrests began on 18 June and Vesey was eventually arrested on 22 June. Of the 6,000 to 9,000 slaves that had been a part of the plot, only 135 men were arrested. Of the arrested, 53 were acquitted, 32 were banished, and 35 were executed, including Denmark Vesey. [5]

Though unsuccessful, Vesey had organized the largest slave conspiracy in North American history and its repercussions were widespread. He had formed a Pan-African alliance of men and women who shared a common oppression in the South. The largely collaborative effort was fearsome to all who owned slaves. [6] As a result of his plot, the South Carolina legislature passed the Negro Seaman’s Act in December 1822, which forced free black seamen into confinement when their ships docked at Charleston. In a letter regarding the insurrection, Governor Bennett stated, “Suspicion and anxiety will long mar the public tranquility.” [7]

Sources

[1] John M. Lofton, Jr., "Denmark Vesey's Call to Arms," The Journal of Negro History 33, no. 4 (October 1948), 412-413 [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2992%28194810%2933%3A4%3C395%3ADVCTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C, Accessed 20 October 2006]; Walter C. Rucker, "'I Will Gather All Nations': Resistance, Culture, and Pan-African Collaboration in Demark Vesey's South Carolina," The Journal of Negro History 86, no. 2 (Spring 2001), 133. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2992%28200121%2986%3A2%3C132%3A%22WGANR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B, Accessed 20 October 2006]

[2] Lofton, "Demark Vesey's Call to Arms," 409.

[3] Rucker, "'I Will Gather All Nations,'" 134.

[4] Lofton, "Demark Vesey's Call to Arms," 416.

[5] H. Niles, ed., "Servile Conspiracy in South Carolina, Niles' Weekley Register XXIII, (18 September 1822 - 3 September 1822), 10-11.

[6] Rucker, "'I Will Gather All Nations,'" 139-141.

[7] Niles, "Servile Conspiracy in South Carolina," 11.

Related Events

1820: Missouri Compromise, 1821: Denmark Vesey Begins Organizing Slave Revolt, 1822: SC Negro Seaman's Act, 1831: Nat Turner Rebellion


1822: TN Legislature Nominates Jackson for President

From Bensonwiki

In the summer of 1822, the Tennessee state legislature did something no state had done prior; it nominated a candidate for President of the United States. On 27 July, the Tennessee House unanimously passed a consensus for the nomination of Andrew Jackson, and on 3 August, the Senate did the same. Jackson, though grateful to his admirers, had no original intensions of seeking such a high position, which he adamantly expressed in letters to family and friends regarding the legislature’s recent actions. [1] In a letter to Andrew Donaldson on 6 August, Jackson stated, “Believe me my Dr. Andrew that I never had a wish to be elevated to that station if I could, my sole ambition is to pass to my grave in retirement.” [2] Even though Jackson never intended to be a Presidential candidate, he made it clear that he would follow the will of the people, and if they wanted him to be their candidate, then he would have no other choice. [3] This is one of the first examples of Jacksonian Democracy and the significance he placed on the will of the common people. In the following year, the Tennessee legislature elected Jackson as a U.S. Senator in order to prove that he was qualified and capable of being an elected official. [4] Tennessee’s avid interest in Andrew Jackson represented the West’s growing role in national politics during the 19th century.

Sources

[1] Andrew Jackson, "To James Craine Bronaugh" (1 August 1822) in Nashville, et al. eds., The Papers of Andrew Jackson (Knoxville, University of Tennessee Press: 1996), V, 210-211; Samuel Houston, "From Samuel Houston" (3 August 1822) in Murfreesboro, et al. eds., The Papers of Andrew Jackson (Knoxville, University of Tennessee Press: 1996), V, 211-212; Andrew Jackson, "To Andrew Jackson Donaldson" (6 August 1822) in Nashville, et al. eds., The Papers of Andrew Jackson (Knoxville, University of Tennessee Press: 1996), V, 212-214.

[2] Andrew Jackson, "To Andrew Jackson Donaldson," 213.

[3] Ibid, 213-214.

[4] H.W. Brands, Andrew Jackson, His Life and Times, (New York: Doubleday, 2005), 376-382.

Related Events

1824: Andrew Jackson Runs for President, 1828: Election of Andrew Jackson


1823: The Christian Baptist

From Bensonwiki

In August 1823, Alexander Campbell began printing a religious periodical called The Christian Baptist in Brooke County, Virginia (presently West Virginia). Campbell announced: “The Christian Baptist shall espouse the cause of no religious sect . . . Its sole object shall be the eviction of truth, and the exposure of error in doctrine and in practice.” [1] However, The Christian Baptist, along with its successor, The Millennial Harbinger, fueled the formation of a brand new Christian denomination: The Disciples of Christ. More importantly, Campbell and his publications—which were primarily publications of his own essays—also aided the formation of the Restoration Movement. The Restoration Movement sought a return to “primitive Christianity,” with a particular scorn for clerics, creeds, and ecclesiastical societies.[2] Restoration Christianity was popular among Puritans, Baptists, Quakers, and early Methodists. However, it had a particularly significant following in the Jacksonian South, where followers despised Northern and Eastern missionary societies for their condescension and power. Rural regionalists, especially in Kentucky and Tennessee, “resented the efforts of the eastern missionaries and 'dandies' to save the frontier from barbarism.”[3] Southern Christians were especially receptive to the Campbell’s The Christian Baptist and The Millennial Harbinger, and the Restorationist messages they both espoused, because the most prevalent denominations in the South, Methodists and Baptists, already emphasized deference to Scriptures and Christian antiquity; and the southern frontier remained resistant to modernity and embraced primitivism in many forms[4].

Related Events

1821: Joseph Smith Vision, 1827: Freedom's Journal Published

SOURCES

[1] Stroupe, Henry Smith, The Religious Press in the South Atlantic States, 1802-1865, (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1956), 57. [2]Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, 1989 ed., "Restoration," 1303. [3] Ibid, 1303. [4]Encyclopedia of the United States in the Nineteenth Century, 2001 ed., "Restorationist," 323, and Southern Culture, 1303.


Return to SHDB main page


1823: Monroe Doctrine

From Bensonwiki

On December 2, 1823, President James Monroe announced a new foreign policy doctrine designed by his Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, via a letter to Congress. In what became known as the Monroe Doctrine, the president’s announcement essentially asserted three ideas: there would be no further European colonization in the New World; the US would henceforth remain isolated from European politics and wars; and any attempt to colonize in North America would be seen as a threat to United States’ national security.[1] The impact of the Monroe Doctrine was delayed. European powers continued to colonize throughout Latin America for the next several decades. Finally, in the 1840s, expansionist President James K. Polk transformed the latent doctrine into “an aggressive assertion of U.S. power.”[2] As the United States quibbled over annexing Texas, Britain was also trying to strike a deal with the region.[3] England would have assuredly emancipated Texas’s slaves, threatening southern slave owners in the states bordering Texas. Indeed, the Southwest would be subjected to the problems of runaway slaves and slave smugglers that had long afflicted Southern border states.[4] After Britain offered to colonize Texas in return for the freeing of its slaves, Polk reissued the Monroe Doctrine “as a warning to the ‘Old Powers’ to stay out of the North American continent.”[5] Senator Francis W. Pickens assured Polk that “Mr. Monroe’s message . . . furnishes a precedent a noble model.” [6] Texas’s admission into the Union via the Monroe Doctrine was an assertion of U.S. dominance in North America.

Related Events

1845: James K. Polk Wins Election, 1845: Texas Becomes 28th State, 1846: Oregon Treaty, 1846: Annexation of California


SOURCES

[1]Encyclopedia of the United States in the Nineteenth Century, 2001 ed., 358-9. [2] Ibid, 359. [3] Perkins, Dexter, A History of the Monroe Doctrine, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1973), 77. [4] Freehling, William W., The Road to Disunion, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 386. [5] Perkins, 75. [6] Pickens, Francis W., 11 Oct. 1844, found in Weaver, Herbert, ed., Correspondence of James K. Polk, Volume VII: 1844, (Nashville, Vanderbilt University Press, 1969), 174.

Return to SHDB main page


1824: Gibbons v. Ogden

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 2 March 1824, Chief Justice John Marshall handed down a ruling in the Gibbons v. Ogden Supreme Court case that would set a precedent with regards to how much Congress might influence the way a state could or could not control interstate commerce and thus also setting the precedent of federal trumping state authority. [1]

The case itself originated in 1818 when Thomas Gibbons, began running his own steamboats, the Stoudinger and the Bellona, on the waterways connecting New Jersey and New York. In New York though, there was a state sanctioned monopoly on all steamboats operating within the state, owned by a Livingston-Fulton group of which Aaron Ogden had purchased a license from to run his own steamships. Thus in 1818, the state cited an injunction against Thomas Gibbons in support of Aaron Ogden. Gibbons attempted to override the injunction, but in 1819, Chancellor Kent of New York granted a permanent injunction against him that was held up by the New York Court of Errors in 1820. Gibbons then appealed his case before the Supreme Court. [2]

The case itself dealt with the issue of whether or not Congressional law superseded state law in the regulation of commerce. The Supreme Court ended ruling in favor of Thomas Gibbons stating that a state can regulate trade within itself, but that the Constitution allows Congress to control interstate trade. [3] This was significant because it hurt what were “unpopular” state funded monopolies and it gave federal authority more weight than state. [4]

Related Events:

1810: Fletcher v. Peck

Sources:

[1] Charles F. Hobson, ed., The Papers of John Marshall: Volume X 1824-1827, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 7; Saturday Evening Post, (13 March 1824), 3. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=206316181&sid=9&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 30 October 2006].

[2] Charles F. Hobson, ed., The Papers of John Marshall: Volume X 1824-1827, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 9-13.

[3] Wallace Mendelson, "New Light on Fletcher v. Peck and Gibbons v. Ogden," The Yale Law Journal, 58 (March, 1949), 572. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0044-0094%28194903%2958%3A4%3C567%3ANLOFVP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3, Accessed 30 October 2006].

[4] Ibid., 568.


1824: Tariff Act of 1824

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 22 May 1824, Congress passed a bill that approved a protective tariff on certain goods in hopes of guarding American industry from cheap foreign imports, mainly coming from Great Britain. The bill was meant to serve as, “the American answer to the courtship of British industry,” by placing duties on such products as hemp, wool, iron, wheat, and glass, all of which could be produced in the United States. [1]

The bill was first proposed by Henry Clay in January 1824 as a part of Clay’s “American System.” [2] The hope was that through such protective measures, the United States would be able not only to utilize its own industries in order to sustain itself, but that it would also encourage westward expansion in search of valuable new resources. [3]

However, despite Clay’s best efforts to raise the tariff issue as one of national importance, Southerners such as John C. Calhoun worried that such tariffs would only hurt their industry by blocking importation of cheap foreign goods, and some Northerners like Daniel Webster were opposed to it because they thought that Congress imposing tariffs was unconstitutional. Yet despite the differences, the bill passed in the House by a margin of 107 to 102 in favor, was approved by the Senate, and signed by President James Monroe. [4]

Related Events:

1823: Monroe Doctrine, 1824: Presidential Election, 1828: Tariff of 1828, 1832: Ordinance of Nullification, 1833: The "Force" Bill, 1833: The Compromise Tariff

Sources:

[1] George Dangerfield, The Era of Good Feelings, (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1952), 308; James F. Hopkins ed., The Papers of Henry Clay: Volume 3 Presidential Candidate 1821-1824, (Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press, 1963), 756.

[2] Charles E. McFarland and Nevin E. Neal, "The Nascence of Protectionism: American Tariff Policies, 1816-1824," Land Economics, 45 (February, 1969), 27. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0023-7639%28196902%2945%3A1%3C22%3ATNOPAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5, Accessed 30 October 2006].

[3] The Atlantic, (1 October 1824), 422. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=736467682&sid=4&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 30 October 2006].

[4] Charles E. McFarland and Nevin E. Neal, "The Nascence of Protectionism: American Tariff Policies, 1816-1824," Land Economics, 45 (February, 1969), 27-29. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0023-7639%28196902%2945%3A1%3C22%3ATNOPAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5, Accessed 30 October 2006].


1824: Last Congressional Nominating Caucus

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 14 February 1824, a Congressional Nominating Caucus was held in Washington D.C. to nominate William H. Crawford of Georgia for President. [1] The significance of this event is not in what happened during it, but rather that it was the last one of its kind to occur.

By the time the election of 1824 came about, opponents abounded for what had been dubbed, “King Caucus.” [2] The main oppositions to the caucus system stemmed from the fact that many believed it did not portray public opinion accurately and forced the American people to vote for a candidate chosen by bureaucrats rather than one who represented issues pertinent to them. [3] Even the other candidates in the 1824 election were opposed to the caucus. Andrew Jackson believed that it “politically put down the individual,” by not allowing his voice to be heard. [4]

For this final caucus only 66 of 261 congressmen showed up, all of whom were political allies of Crawford. In fact, the voters did not even use ballots, because all but two were there to vote for the same man. During the meeting many spectators gathered in the House to watch the meeting unfold. [5] So ridiculous was this event viewed by the public that at one point, onlookers began to stamp the ground as if they were watching a “farce,” while hissing at the group of voters. [6] In the end, Crawford was nominated, but the absurdity of the caucus and the ensuing election of 1824 proved to be the end of the caucus system.

Related Events:

1824: Presidential Election

Sources

[1] Charles S. Sydnor, "The One-Party Period of American History," The American Historical Review, 51 (April, 1946), 440. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28194604%2951%3A3%3C439%3ATOPOAH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H, Accessed 30 October 2006].

[2] "The Caucus of Sixty-Six," Niles' Weekly Register, (28 February 1824), 401. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=811845742&sid=1&Fmt=1&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 30 October 2006].

[3] Charles S. Sydnor, "The One-Party Period of American History," The American Historical Review, 51 (April, 1946), 444. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28194604%2951%3A3%3C439%3ATOPOAH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H, Accessed 30 October 2006].

[4] William G. Morgan, "The Origin and Development of the Congressional Nominating Caucus," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 113 (17 April 1969), 195. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-049X%2819690417%29113%3A2%3C184%3ATOADOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0, Accessed 30 October 2006].

[5] "The Caucus of Sixty-Six," Niles' Weekly Register, (28 February 1824), 401. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=811845742&sid=1&Fmt=1&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 30 October 2006].

[6] Ibid., 401.


1824: Bureau of Indian Affairs Created

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 11 March 1824, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun created what would later become known as the Bureau of Indian Affairs when he hired longtime proponent of Indians’ rights Thomas L. McKenney and subsequently allocated him to the area of Indian affairs. [1]

In the past all Indian affairs had been handled directly by the Department of War; however, as the 19th Century progressed, Calhoun believed that that the Indians were no longer a “threat to national security,” and thus were not in need of his direct supervision. [2] Therefore, on March 16, 1824, under the direction of McKenney and his assistants Samuel Hamilton and Hezekiah Miller, the Office of Indian Affairs first opened its doors. [3]

The main function of the Bureau was to “administer the fund(s) for the civilization of the Indians,” as well as making sure all treaties and laws that dealt with particular Indian tribes with regards to territorial rights and boundaries were being followed, and then making suggestions to the War Department as to how situations ought to be handled. [4] Essentially, the Bureau would correspond with Indians and their territorial governors, and then try to decide how was best to handle situations that would arise. [5]

The Bureau also allocated money that was used to provide schooling for Indian children. It provided schools for both boys and girls in hopes of “civilizing” them by teaching the boys “husbandry” and the girls “domestic duties.” [6] The Bureau still exists today, and it works with the Indians to provide education and protect their rights.

Related Events:

1817: John C. Calhoun Appointed Secretary of War, 1825: Creek Indian Treaty, 1826: Treaty of Washington signed by Indian tribes in Georgia, 1830: Indian Removal Act, 1831 Cherokee vs Georgia

Sources:

[1] W. Edwin Hemphill, ed., The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume VIII, 1823-1824, (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1975), xxii.

[2] Herman J. Viola, Thomas L. McKenney: Architect of America's Early Indian Policy: 1816-1830, (Chicago: The Swallo Press Inc., 1974), 93.

[3] W. Edwin Hemphill, ed., The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume VIII, 1823-1824, (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1975), 575; Herman J. Viola, Thomas L. McKenney: Architect of America's Early Indian Policy: 1816-1830, (Chicago: The Swallo Press Inc., 1974), 95.

[4] W. Edwin Hemphill, ed., The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume VIII, 1823-1824, (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1975), 576.

[5] Ibid., 576.

[6] "Report of the Committee on Indian Affairs," The Western New York Baptist, (August, 1824), 200. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=72497849&sid=2&Fmt=1&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 31 October 2006].


1824: American Sunday School Union Established

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 25 May 1824 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the American Sunday School Union was established by Alexander Henry and several other “leaders from Philadelphia’s commercial and financial networks.” [1] Their basic intent was, “to concentrate and strengthen the efforts of Sabbath School societies around the country and strengthen the pious instruction on the Lord’s Day.” [2] Their hope was to strengthen America’s religiosity by placing Sunday schools wherever there was a need. [3] They also hoped to make existing Sunday schools better through a monthly publication that would be distributed nationwide and would deal with ways at making Sunday schools stronger and more prolific. [4]

The Union came about from the combination of the Philadelphia Sunday and Adult School Union with other smaller societies of the same token. [5] The men who began the Union were not religious leaders, but rather businessmen who hoped to use religion as a mode of “social discipline” that would help to calm “the volatile seas of antebellum urban life.” [6] They believed that the key to “community harmony” lay in the ability to influence children at an early age through their missions and Sunday schools. [7] These men were primarily Presbyterian and Episcopalian, and as a result, most of the Union’s dealings were restricted to within the two denominations. [8]

Within its first year, the Union had established 723 schools around the country and was quickly expanding into other areas of the South and the West through its extensive missions work. The Union quickly became a truly national organization with its influence being felt all over the United States. [9]

Related Events:

Early 1800s: Second Great Awakening, 1826: American Temperance Society Founded, 1837: Split in Presbyterian Church, 1861: Split in Old School Presbyterian Church

Sources:

[1] Anne M. Boylan, Sunday School: The Formation of an American Institution 1790-1880, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 61.

[2] "American Sunday School Union; Constitution," The American Sunday School Magazine, (July, 1824), 28. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=775957302&sid=3&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 31 October 2006].

[3] Ibid., 28.

[4] "Intelligence; Philadelphia Sunday and Adult School Union," The American Sunday School Magaznie, (July, 1824), 27. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=775957312&sid=2&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 31 October 2006]; Christian Watchman, (19 June 1824), 111. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=836500012&sid=2&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 31 October 2006].

[5] "American Sunday School Union; Constitution," The American Sunday School Magazine, (July, 1824), 28. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=775957302&sid=3&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 31 October 2006].

[6] Anne M. Boylan, Sunday School: The Formation of an American Institution 1790-1880, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 68.

[7] Ibid., 68.

[8] Ibid., 63.

[9] Christian Watchman, (19 June 1824), 111. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=836500012&sid=2&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 31 October 2006]; Anne M. Boylan, Sunday School: The Formation of an American Institution 1790-1880, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 69.


1824: Presidential Election

From Bensonwiki

Description

In November 1824, the United States Presidential election was at a standstill. Andrew Jackson had received the most popular votes, but not a single one of the candidates had achieved the number of electoral votes necessary to win the election. Therefore, the election moved to the House of Representatives in order to decide the winner out of the top three vote getters: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and William H. Crawford. [1]

On December 1, 1824 the election officially moved to the House of Representatives. There were whisperings of an alliance being made between Henry Clay’s and John Quincy Adams’s political associates in order to secure Adams the victor; however, most of the allegations seemed conflicting and unclear. [2] Despite the rumors though, on February 9, 1825, the House cast its official vote on the matter with John Quincy Adams receiving 13 votes, Jackson getting 7 votes, and Crawford attaining 4 votes. Thus, Adams was announced as the victor amidst a mix of applause and hissing from the crowd seated in the House gallery. [3]

The election marked the end of the Era of Good Feelings when “old political associations had been founded on personal loyalties,” and the nation’s politics were dominated by a one-party system. [4] It also marked the end of the Virginian presidents and the caucus system since many states had chosen their electors by popular vote. Yet despite the move away from caucuses towards popular sovereignty, only 25% of eligible voters cast ballots in the election. [5]

Related Events:

1824: Last Congressional Nominating Caucus, 1825: Corrupt Bargain, 1828: Election of Andrew Jackson

Sources:

[1] Saturday Evening Post, (5 February 1825), 3. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=206398371&sid=2&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 1 November 2006]; "Election of President and Vice President of the U.S.," Boston Recorder, (18 December 1824), 203. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=804936502&sid=4&Fmt=1&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 31 October 2006].

[2] Saturday Evening Post, (5 February 1825), 3. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=206398371&sid=2&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 1 November 2006].

[3] The Library of Congress, "Register of Debates, 18th Congress, 2nd Session," <http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llrd&fileName=001/llrd001.db&recNum=266&gt; [accessed 7 November 2006].

[4] Mary W. M. Hargreaves, The Presidency of John Quincy Adams, (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1985), 18.

[5] Ibid., 19.


1825: Corrupt Bargain

From Bensonwiki

Description:

The Presidential election of 1824 was marked by controversy over the Electoral College. All four candidates, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, William H. Crawford, and Andrew Jackson, ran under the Democratic-Republican Party[1]. The election was decided by the House of Representatives under the 12th amendment with Henry Clay making the deciding vote between Adams and Jackson. Clay, with firm conviction, cast his vote to Adams, and on February 9, 1825 Adams was elected President of the United States[2]. Shortly after winning, Adams appointed Clay Secretary of State[3]. Jackson and his supporters called this political move a “corrupt bargain”[4], claiming that the appointment confirmed suspicions of a secret alliance and warned against further corruption in office[5]. They claimed that desire for personal success triumphed over upholding the principles of democracy and the will of the people[6] because Jackson had won both the Electorate and popular vote.

The Election ended the one party system of the Era of Good Feelings and marked the reemergence of the two-party system in American politics [7] and the emergence of the Democratic and Whig Parties. Political campaigning strategies became more aggressive as parties organized to garner mass support for the candidate[8] and as a result, more people voted in the Presidential Election of 1828 as Jackson defeated Adams by twelve percent[9] and used the “corrupt bargain” as propaganda.


Related Events:

1804: The Twelfth Amendment; 1824: Presidential Election; 1828: Election of Andrew Jackson; 1828: Emergence of Democratic Party; 1834: Emergence of Whig Party

Sources:

[1]Robert V. Remini, The Election of Andrew Jackson, <Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1963), 17. [2]Baltimore, Maryland, Niles Weekly Register, 19 February 1825. [3]The Reader's Companion to American History, s.v. "Election of 1824." [4]Remini, Election, 25. [5]Andrew Jackson to William Berkeley Lewis, 20 February 1825, in The Papers of Andrew Jackson: 1825-1828, eds. J. Clint Clift and Harold D. Moser (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2002), 37. [6]Baltimore, Niles, 19 February 1825. [7]Remini, Election, 203. [8]Ibid., 7. [9]Reader's Guide, s.v. "The Election of 1828."


1825: Creek Indian Treaty

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On February 12, 1825, William McIntosh and other Creek leaders signed a treaty with the United States at Indian Springs, GA ceding all of their land in Georgia and half of their land in Alabama[1], totaling almost 5 million acres[2]. In return, the United States granted the Creeks $400,000 and tracts of land west of the Mississippi River equal to that of the land ceded[3]. Under the provisions of the treaty, the Creeks were required to leave by September 1, 1826[4] and had been promised that no United States citizens would encroach upon their land until then. The acquisition of Creek land provided lower taxes and better state services and internal improvements for Georgia[5]. The Senate ratified the treaty March 3, 1825[6].

But the treaty was signed under false pretenses as McIntosh did not have the authority or consent of the Creeks to sign the treaty. Creek leaders were outraged at McIntosh’s betrayal and the United States’ confiscating more of their land. They immediately petitioned the government requesting the disposal of the treaty, organized under Chief Opothle Yoholo [7], and murdered McIntosh for violating tribal law[8]. To calm Georgian fears of Creek rebellion, Adams sent General Gaines to persuade the Indians to acquiesce, but Governor Troup provoked fear among Georgians for political gain[9]. The treaty contributed to the American fear of Indian rebellion and continued Indian removal policies that would occur during the Jacksonian era.


Related Events:

1790: Treaty of New York; 1802: Georgia Compact; 1814: Treaty of Fort Jackson; 1821:Treaty of 1821 at Indian Springs; 1823: Cherokee Council; 1824: Council at Tuckabatchee; 1826: The Washington Treaty


Sources:

[1]Michael D. Green, The Creeks: A Critical Bibliography, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979), 42. [2]Baltimore, Maryland, Niles Weekly Register, 12 March 1825 [3]Register, 26 March 1825 [4]Register, 27 August 1825 [5]Michael D. Green, The Politics of Indian Removal, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982), 102. [6]Ibid., 91. [7]Digital Library of Georgia Database Southeastern Native American Documents, 1730-1842, "[Talk] 1825, Dec. 16, Washington [D.C. to the] Secretary of War/Creek Delegation," http://neptune3.galib.uga.edu/ssp/cgi-bin/tei-natamer-idx.pl?sessionid=7f000001&type=doc&tei2id=tcc009 [accessed 24 October 2006]. [8] Green, Politics, 96. [9]Green, Politics, 114.


1825: Nashoba Founded

From Bensonwiki

Description:

In early autumn of 1825 Frances Wright, with the support of President Monroe and Andrew Jackson, purchased 320 acres of land for $480 on the Wolf River near Memphis, TN[1]. Under the influence of Robert Owen and his recently formed New Harmony Society[2], Wright named her utopian community Nashoba, the Chickasaw word for “wolf”[3]. She purchased 20 slaves and planned to educate them as they worked to pay for both the experiment and their eventual colonization in another country[4]. The object was to demonstrate a successful method of ending slavery by presenting an alternative to the South’s agricultural economy based on slave labor [5]. In creating a peaceful environment that promoted equality amongst whites and blacks, Nashoba would prepare slaves to enter the world as virtuous and capable citizens[6].

By 1826, the atmosphere and conditions of Nashoba was miserable and repressive[7]. Reports of sexual misconduct, floggings, and parental discontent over losing control of raising their children added to the decline of support[8]. The experiment was never fully realized, as Wright did not attract enough interest in settlement [9], and ended in 1829 when she took the remaining slaves to Haiti[10]. Failure occurred due to lack of financial support from the United States and European countries[11], sickness, outside criticism, internal conflict [12], and idealism. Nashoba exemplifies the combination of the premature abolition movement and the response to corruption of virtue through forming utopian societies during the 19th century.


Related Event:

1825: Founding of New Harmony Society

Sources:

[1]Celia Morris Eckhardt, Fanny Wright: Rebel in America, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 109. [2]Ibid., 115. [3]The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture, "Nashoba," <http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/imagegallery.php?EntryID=N004&gt; [accessed 31 October 2006]. [4]Helen L. Heineman, "'Starving in that Land of Plenty': New Backgrounds to Frances' Trollope's Domestic Manners of the Americans," American Quarterly, 24 (December 1972), 645. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0678%28197212%2924%3A5%3C643%3A%22ITLOP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R, accessed 31 October 2006] [5]Tennessee, "Nashoba" [6] New Harmony, Indiana, New Harmony Gazette, 30 January 1828 <http://jmisc.net/jm970325.htm&gt; [accessed 31 October 2006] [7]Heineman, "Starving," 650. [8]Tennessee, "Nashoba" [9]Eckhardt, Fanny, 112. [10]Tennessee, "Nashoba" [11]Echhardt, Fanny, 111. [12]Tennessee, "Nashoba"


1825: Opening of the Erie Canal

From Bensonwiki

Description:

In April 1817, after years of consideration and the urging of De Witt Clinton, the New York Legislature authorized the construction of the Erie Canal. Work began symbolically on July 4, 1817[1]. As America’s first extensive artificial waterway, 364 miles in length connecting Albany, NY on the Hudson River to Buffalo, NY on Lake Erie[2], the canal opened on October, 1825. Funding by the state of New York, the canal was an immediate success and earned over $500,000 in 1825[3]. Freight costs dropped significantly as trade was cheaper, faster and more accessible[4], but overcrowding was an immediate problem[5]. Debates over enlargement ensued[6]. Thousands of men, especially immigrants, found low-skilled and low-wage jobs strenuously working on the canal[7]. The canal eventually connected the east and the west for the first time[8] and encouraged westward expansion[9].

The success of the canal jumpstarted the revitalization of old possible canal project[10] as states began transportation expansion with a sense of urgency[11]. By 1828, over eight million dollars had been spent building canals[12], though not all canals were as successful[13]. The James River Canal, the first canal in the south, was completed in 1835[14]. The south suffered from poor transportation and though displayed interest in building canals early on[15], rejected the idea of federal aid for internal improvements because it promoted the tariff[16] and excessive spending[17]. The canal also served as a forerunner for the railroad boom that quickly followed and more directly affected southern transportation.


Related Events:

1828: Chesapeake and Ohio Canal began construction; 1829: New York State Temperance Society; 1834: Main Line of Public Works opened; 1835: James River Canal completed; 1837: Panic of 1837


Sources:

[1]George Rogers Taylor, The Transportation Revolution, (New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1951), 33. [2]Roger E. Carp, "The Limits of Reform: Labor and Discipline on the Erie Canal," Journal of the Early Republic,10 (Summer 1990), 194. [JSOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0275-1275%28199022%2910%3A2%3C191%3ATLORLA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D, Accessed 31 October 2006] [3]Taylor, Transportation, 34. [4]The Reader's Companion to American History, s.v. "Erie Canal Results." [5]Taylor, Transportation, 34. [6]Companion, "Erie Canal Results." [7]Carp, "Limits," 200. [8]Carter Goodrich, Canals and American Economic Development, (Port Washington: Kennikat Press, 1972), 68. [9]Carol Sheriff, The Artificial River, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1996), 68. [10]Thomas, Transportation, 36 . [11]Goodrich, Canals, 69. [12]Ibid., 173. [13]Companion, s.v. "Erie Canal." [14]Goodrich, Canals, 194. [15]Governor Moore to John C. Calhoun, 30 December 1829, in The Papers of John C. Calhoun, ed. Clyde N. Wilson (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1978), 92. [16]Taylor, Transportation, 21. [17]"Rough Draft of an Address to the People of South Carolina by John C. Calhoun," 1 December 1830, in Papers, 272.


1826: Publication of the Last of the Mohicans

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Last of the Mohicans, James Fenimore Cooper's most famous novel was published to great popular acclaim in 1826 and has never been out of print since. Telling the tale of several European-Americans and Indians caught up in the wilderness during the French and Indian War, the Mohicans along with the rest of Cooper's "Leatherstocking Tales" were the archetypes for romantic literature of the mid-nineteenth century. Cooper's book eventually sold millions of copies. Although a romantic novel, the book was also important for the questions it raised concerning feminity, the frontier, Indian removal, and race relations, questions extremely important to a nation celebrating its 50th anniversary in the year of "Jubilee" of 1826 and facing a transition to a much different era. Although not the first great American novel, the Last of the Mohicans helped strengthen America's artistic reputation and served as an inspiration for later American frontier symbols. Shortly after his death, he was praised by both Herman Melville and Washington Irving as "our national novelist."

Related Events:

1820: Land Act of 1820, 1825: Creek Indian Treaty

Sources:

John McWilliams, The Last of the Mohicans: Civil Savagery and Savage Civility, (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995)

Martin Barker and Roger Sabin, The Lasting of the Mohicans: History of an American Myth (Jackson, Miss: University Press of Mississippi, 1996)


1826: Senator John Randolph and Secretary of State Henry Clay duel

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 8 April, 1826 Senator John Randolph of Virginia and Secretary of State Henry Clay met at Little Falls, Virginia to duel. Although several parties, including Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri and General Thomas Jessup attempted to stop the duel, it continued as planned. Secretary Clay, who had dueled once before against Humphrey Marshall in 1809 over textile imports, had asked for the duel as a result of Senator Randolph's criticism. Henry Clay had become Secretary of State after the election of John Quincy Adams. Because no man received the necessary votes in the electoral college in the Presidential Election, the decision was given to the House of Representatives. Henry Clay gave his strong support to John Quincy Adams and when Adams won the vote, he appointed Clay Secretary of State. The quick-tongued, eccentric John Randolph was upset at Secretary Clay for what he believed to be an apparent act of corruption between the executive and legislative branches, and in a lengthy, diatribe he personally insulted Clay and the Secretary "demanded personal satisfaction". The duel itself was anti-climatic, Clay fired into the ground and Randolph into the air and exchanged handshakes afterwards. The duel, although ending amicably, exemplifies the deep division in Congress after the election of 1824 and helped set up increased voter turn-out in 1828. It also is a fine example of the permeation of dueling in American life in the 19th century, especially in the elite classes.

Related Events

1824: Presidential Election 1825: Corrupt Bargain1828: Election of Andrew Jackson

Sources

Robert Dawidoff, The Education of John Randolph, (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1979)

Robert Reid Howison, "Dueling in Virginia", William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, 2nd Ser., Vol. 4, No. 4. (Oct., 1924), pp. 217-244. JSTOR Accessed 14 November 2006 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597%28192410%292%3A4%3A4%3C217%3ADIV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2)

Robert V. Remini, Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union, (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1991)

Warren F. Schwartz et. al. "The Duel: Can these Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently?", The Journal of Legal Studies Vol. 13, No. 2 (Jun., 1984), pp. 321-355. Accessed 14 November 2006 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0047-2530%28198406%2913%3A2%3C321%3ATDCTGB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H)


1826: American Temperance Society Founded

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 13 February 1826, the first American Temperance Society was founded in Boston, Massachusetts. Although the Society sought to become a national clearinghouse for all temperance related information nationally, the organization and its descendants struggled with this goal of a nationally unified movement, especially in the southern United States. That is not to say that temperance did not have its advocates in the southern United States, the "Virginia Temperance Society", the first such organization in the Southern states was organized just a few months after the American Temperance Society in Boston on October 27 (its founders had no knowledge of the American Temperance Society's founding though). While it has been argued that the ratio of participants in Temperance Societies in the North and South remained roughly equal for much of the history of the antebellum Temperance movement, a key difference between the Northern and the Southern Temperance movements were the inability of temperance organizations in the South to expand to broader social reforms. While Northern movements became associated with the Womens' Suffrage Movement and Abolitionism, these aspects of reform did not result from Temperance movements in the South. Instead they remained largely religious (heavily reliant on evangelicals)in nature and in the rural, hierarchal South, in the hands of men.

Related Links

1886: Invention of Coca-cola

Sources

American Temperance Society, Permanent Temperance Documents of the American Temperance Society, (New York, Arno Press, 1972)

Douglas W. Carlson, "Drinks He to His Own Undoing": Temperance Ideology in the Deep South", Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 18, No. 4. (Winter, 1998), pp. 659-691. [JSTOR Accessed November 18, 2006 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0275-1275%28199824%2918%3A4%3C659%3A%22HTHOU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D)]

John L. Merrill, "The Bible and the American Temperance Movement: Text, Context, and Pretext", The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 81, No. 2. (Apr., 1988), pp. 145-170. [JSTOR Accessed November 18, 2006 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-8160%28198804%2981%3A2%3C145%3ATBATAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z)]

C.C. Pearson and J. Edwin Hendricks, Liquor and Anti-Liquor in Virginia: (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1967), 58-59.

Ian R. Tyrrell, "Drink and Temperance in the Antebellum South: An Overview and Interpretation", The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 48, No. 4. (Nov., 1982), pp. 485-510. [JSTOR Accessed November 18, 2006 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28198211%2948%3A4%3C485%3ADATITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y)]

Donald Yacovone, The Transformation of the Black Temperance Movement,: An Interpretation, Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 8, No. 3. (Autumn, 1988), pp. 281-297. [JSTOR Accessed November 18, 2006 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0275-1275%28198823%298%3A3%3C281%3ATTOTBT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2)]


1826: Death of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 4 July 1826, the two former Presidents, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died within hours of each other on the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Already a day marked by large celebrations, the death of both former Presidents gave, what many newspapers referred to as "divine providence" to the proceedings. While politically at odds for most of their life and having never encountered each other face-to-face after the election of 1800, Jefferson and Adams had enjoyed a hearty correspondence between themselves in the last years of their life. It is even rumored (and with some documented support) that John Adams's last words were, "Thomas Jefferson, survives". While both men were old in age, (only one other signer of the Declaration of Independence was still alive after their death), the United States was undergoing dramatic changes during this era (for example, the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825 and the construction of the first American railroad in Massachusetts in 1826) so the coincidental death of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson marked a very symbolic turning point that could be used to explain a whole host of unquantifiable real turning points. Publications in the United States lectured on the importance of these two men and their deaths and the event became a national cause for thought and celebration.

Related Events

Sources

Andrew Burstein, America's Jubilee: How in 1826 A Generation Remembered Fifty Years of Independence (New York: Knopf, 2001)

Robert P. Hay, "The Glorious Departure of the American Patriarchs: Contemporary Reactions to the Deaths of Jefferson and Adams",The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 35, No. 4. (Nov., 1969), pp. 543-555. [JSTOR Accessed November 15, 2006 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28196911%2935%3A4%3C543%3ATGDOTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z)]

Robert M. S. McDonald, "Thomas Jefferson's Changing Reputation as Author of the Declaration of Independence: The First Fifty Years", Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 19, No. 2. (Summer, 1999), pp. 169-195. [JSTOR Accessed November 15, 2006 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0275-1275%28199922%2919%3A2%3C169%3ATJCRAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7)]

NILES' WEEKLY REGISTER, Baltimore, July 15, 1826

Charles Warren, "Fourth of July Myths", The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., Vol. 2, No. 3. (Jul., 1945), pp. 237-272. [JSTOR Accessed November 15, 2006 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597%28194507%293%3A2%3A3%3C237%3AFOJM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V)]


1827: Rejection of Wool Tariff

From Bensonwiki

Description

In 1827, almost all of the South, other than the Planter and Slave classes, were against the “Woolens bill,”1and the politics of the tariff revealed the ugly class struggles in South Carolina. Even though the Planter class remained quiet from 1824-1827, the cities, lowlands, and back country regions all had grievances against the new tariff. Much of the grievance was caused by the fear that depleted revenue (caused by raising the protectionist tariff) would cause higher taxation and increase the cost of manufactured goods.2Fortunately for the South, the bill was rejected when Vice President John C. Calhoun voted down the protectionist tariff when he cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.3

The debate over the bill highlighted the economic regionalism of tariff policy as the North favored protectionist tariffs for its fledging industries, whereas the South favored low, revenue building tariffs which would create capital for internal improvements. The sectional divide prompted the president of South Carolina University to remark “Is it worth our while to continue this union of States, where the North demands to be our master and we are required to be their tributaries?”4

Related Events:

1828: Tariff of 1828

Sources:

1 John L. Conger, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review: South Carolina and the Early Tariffs [book on-line] (March., 1919 accessed 14 November 2006) available from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161391X%28191903%295%3A4%3C415%3ASCATET%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F; Internet.

2 Ibid, 285.

3 Ralph Berens, ed., Chronicle of America, (Mount Kisco, New York: Chronicle Publishers), 284.

4 Ibid, 285.


1827: New Orleans Has First Mardi Gras

From Bensonwiki

Description

One of the most important cultural festivals of New Orleans, The Mari Gras Festival, had its beginnings in masked balls celebrating the pre-Lenten season beginning in colonial times. However the first carnival parade was introduced to the city in 1827 by some students returning home from Paris.1 Following a custom in Paris known as Shrove Tuesday, the students donned costumes and threw flowers in the streets. Before the carnival parades in 1827, the masked balls were started during the governorship of Pierre-Cavagnal de Rigaud, Marquis de Vaudreuil in 1743.2 Vaudruil was from elite nobility in Paris, and was known for his state dinners, card parties, and balls.3

In Paris the tradition which originated the celebration of Mardi Gras was held in the festival which was held before the 40-day fast of Easter. Shrove Tuesday, the day of the festival, is the last day before the period of self-denial that begins on Ash Wednesday.4

Related Events:

1853: New Orleans Yellow Fever Epidemic

Sources:

1 George Lipsitz, “Mardi Gras Indians: Carnival and Counter-Narrative in Black New Orleans” (Cultural Critique, No. 10, Popular Narrative, Popular Images,), pp. 99-121. accessed 13 November 2006); available from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0882-4371%28198823%290%3A10%3C99%3AMGICAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8; Internet.

2 Ralph Berens, ed., Chronicle of America, (Mount Kisco, New York: Chronicle Publishers), 285.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.


1827: Martin v Mott

From Bensonwiki

Description

A number of states objected to the Calling Forth Act of 1795. This act included the clause that “that whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State or States most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his order for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper."1 The states objected to the Calling Forth Act because it gave the president almost tyrannical powers; however in the Supreme Court Case Martin v. Mott the court unanimously upheld the act. Martin v. Mott effectively denied the state the right to with hold its militia from service. As for the state’s concerns over presidential power, Justice Joseph Storey stated that Congressional oversight and frequent elections of the legislature and executive branches would guard against the predations of presidential power.2 This sweeping affirmation of Presidential power would directly affect the American South in the decades following the 1827 decision. Martin v. Mott supported Andrew Jackson’s military power in the Nullification Crisis versus South Carolina, as well as Abraham Lincoln’s call for volunteers in 1861, again for the use of force against South Carolina. Several Southern states, especially Virginia, would rather join the Confederacy rather then have Virginian Militia fight fellow Southern states.

Related Events:

1832: Ordinance of Nullification

1833: The "Force" Bill

1833: Nullification of the "Force" Bill

Sources:

1Story, Joseph. "Martin V. Mott, 1827." The Potowmack Institute. Jan. 1827. Potowmack Institute. 16 Nov. 2006 <http://www.potowmack.org/martmott.html&gt;.

2Don Higginbotham, “The Federalized Militia Debate: A Neglected Aspect of Second Amendment Scholarship,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., Vol. 55, No. 1. (Jan., 1998), 55. JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597%28199801%293%3A55%3A1%3C39%3ATFMDAN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T, Accessed 13 November 2006]


1827: Freedom's Journal Published

From Bensonwiki

Description

In the late 1820’s, political and social changes were seeking to remove some of the rights of the African-American Freedman, and realizing something must be done to support their rights, two young editors Samuel E. Cornish, and John Russwurm (the first African American to earn a college education) decided to publish a newspaper as a “weapon of defense” and way to express universe truths to America.1 The first published edition of the newspaper, called Freedom’s Journal, was issued on March 16, 1827, with an introduction stating the editor’s devotion to the U.S Constitution as well as a claim to “never court controversy.”2 However, ever since its first publication, Freedom’s Journal immediately issued a very radical anti-slavery objective, demanding for immediate emancipation even before William Lloyd Garrison of Liberator fame.3 In fact the Cornish and Russwurm called the members of the African Colonization Society the “enemies of the colored people.” Although Freedom’s Journal drew strong criticism from New York Publishers and the more moderate wings of the anti-slavery establishment4 , its uncompromising push for complete and immediate emancipation for all slaves lent greater attention to the position, eventually the position of the majority of the anti-slavery movement.

Related Events:

1827: Northwood Published

1831: Garrisons Liberator

1833: American Anti-Slavery Society

Sources:

1Bella Gross, “Freedom's Journal and the Rights of All,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 17, No. 3. (Jul., 1932), pp. 241. JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597%28199801%293%3A55%3A1%3C39%3ATFMDAN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T, Accessed 16 November 2006]

2Ibid, 242.

3Ibid, 243.

4Ibid, 244.


1827: Northwood Published

From Bensonwiki

Description

Sarah Hale’s Northwood (1827) was first published a quarter of a century before the much more famous anti-slavery novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) by Harriet Beecher Stowe. And yet Sarah Hale set the precedent, for she had published the first anti-slavery novel in America. However Sarah Hale never became as famous as Harriet Beecher Stowe, and her works have been shunned by modern American historians because of their blatant portrayals of white supremacists, her own pro-colonization appeals, and to most academics view, her works do not make “good read.”1 However Hale was able to capitalize financially on the success of Uncle Tom’s Cabin when she republished Northwood in 1852. Hale offered her novel as a peaceful if long range alternative to the war talk which Stowe’s book had fomented; in fact Hale feared such a possibility. 2 Hale’s statement at the end of the 1852 rendition of Northwood illustrated her faith in fiction’s ability to foment change “Let us trust that the pen and no the sword will decide the controversy now going on in our land; and that any part woman may take in the former mode will be promotive of peace, and not suggestive of discord.”3

Related Events:

1831: Garrisons Liberator

1833: American Anti-Slavery Society

1851: Anti-Slavery Paper Serializes Stowe's Famous Novel

Sources:

1 Susan M. Ryan, “Errand into Africa: Colonization and Nation Building in Sarah J. Hale's Liberia” The New England Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 4. (Dec., 1995), pp. 564. JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00284866%28199512%2968%3A4%3C558%3AEIACAN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J , Accessed 15 November 2006]

2Ibid, pp. 565.

3Ibid, pp. 564.


1828: Tariff of 1828

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On June 13, 1828, Congress approved a protectionist tariff.[1] The tariff was crafted by New York Senator Martin Van Buren, a Jacksonian democrat. When Van Buren and his fellow democrats wrote the bill for the proposed tariff, they had one objective in mind, the election of Andrew Jackson to the presidency in the election of 1828. The tariff blatantly favored certain areas of the country, specifically the states of Kentucky, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York. These protective measures for the industries of those states were aimed at essentially bribing these states into voting for Andrew Jackson in the election. [2] Van Buren and other democrats knew that in order for Jackson to win the election, the Democratic party needed to take these states. The Democrats felt that although this tariff would anger some of the Southern states, it would not anger them to the point that they would change their vote to John Quincy Adams. Everyone suspected that the bill would be defeated because it was such a high tariff, but it managed to pass. The passage of this bill was met with great outrage in the south, especially in South Carolina, which saw the measure as ruinous to its economic system.[3]. In South Carolina, the Tariff of 1828 was referred to as the Tariff of Abominations.

Related Events:

1824: Tariff Act of 1824 1828: Election of Andrew Jackson 1828: South Carolina declares right to nullify 1832: Ordinance of Nullification 1833: The Compromise Tariff

Sources:

[1] Robert R. Remini, The Election of Andrew Jackson, (Philadelphia: J.B.Lippincott and Company, 1993), 171.

[2] Ibid., 172.

[3] Ibid., 171.


1828: Election of Andrew Jackson

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On December 3, 1828 Andrew Jackson defeated incumbent John Quincy Adams for the presidency of the United States. Jackson received 647,231 popular votes and 178 electoral votes while Adams received 509,097 popular votes and 83 electoral votes.[1] Jackson’s victory was very satisfying for him because he had previously lost in the election of 1824, an election that was highly contested and Jackson felt he had been cheated out of it by Henry Clay. For four years, Jackson and his newly formed political party, the Democratic Party, strategized how they would win the election of 1828. Many Americans were unhappy with the job that John Quincy Adams had done and they viewed him as “an Eastern aristocrat completely indifferent to their needs or hopes”.[2] The American people felt that it was time for a change. Many Americans were naturally drawn to the character of Andrew Jackson. He was viewed as a national hero for his role in the War of 1812 and the Seminole War. Americans felt that they could relate with him better than with previous presidential candidates. Jackson was very much a candidate of the people.[3] Jackson’s election was significant because it symbolized a changing of the guard and it changed the course of American politics with the introduction of the era of Jacksonian democracy.

Related Events:

1824: Presidential Election 1825: Corrupt Bargain 1828: Tariff of 1828

Sources:

[1] Richard B. Morris, Encyclopedia of American History, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953), 167.

[2] Robert V. Remini, The Election of Andrew Jackson, (New York: J.B. Lippincott and Company, 1953), 191.

[3] Ibid., 67.


1828: South Carolina Declares Right to Nullify

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On December 19, 1828, the pamphlet The South Carolina Exposition and Protest on the Subject of the Tariff was presented to the South Carolina state government.[1] It was drafted by John C. Calhoun in response to the Tariff of 1828, although he elected to remain anonymous as its author for political purposes.[2] The Tariff of 1828 increased the prices of nearly all manufactured articles that South Carolinians bought and did nothing to increase their buying power to purchase those goods. Calhoun declared that the Tariff of 1828 or the “Tariff of Abominations” was “unconstitutional, unequal and oppressive, and calculated to corrupt the public virtue and destroy the liberty of the country”.[3] Because of this, Calhoun believed that the state had the constitutional privilege to void or nullify the tariff if it was not repealed by the federal government. [4] This declaration by the state of South Carolina showed that they would not back down from what they viewed as blatant sectional favoritism on the part of the Federal government. South Carolinians were distrustful of the Federal Government and felt that what was in the best interest of the federal government went against what was in the best interest of the state of South Carolina. Calhoun’s message was important because up until 1828, South Carolina had viewed protective tariffs as unjust, but beginning with the Tariff of Abominations in 1828, they began to view them as unconstitutional.[5]

Related Events:

1828: Tariff of 1828 1832: Ordinance of Nullification 1833: The Force Bill 1833: The Compromise Tariff 1833: Nullification of the Force Bill

Sources:

[1] Frederic Bancroft, Calhoun and the South Carolina Nullification Movement, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1928), 40.

[2] Ibid., 38.

[3] Ibid., 41.

[4] Robert R. Remini, The Election of Andrew Jackson, (Philadelphia: J.B.Lippincott and Company, 1993), 178.

[5] Bancroft, Calhoun, 18.


1828: Webster Publishes American Dictionary

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On April 21, 1828, Noah Webster published the American Dictionary of the English Language. Webster worked for more than a quarter century on his dictionary.[1] It was a monumental project that contained over 70,000 entries, which were all written by Webster.[2] It was also the last major dictionary ever compiled by a single individual.[3] Webster undertook this massive project because he believed in the power of words. He felt that language was important because it had the power to influence opinion and behavior. Webster also believed that the misunderstanding of words could lead to social and political upheaval. There were certain words that Webster took great time in defining. Words such as “republicanism”, “liberty”, and other words with possible political implications received more attention because he felt that these had the potential to be dangerous.[4]

Many people regarded Webster’s dictionary as a work of patriotism. After all, it was the American Dictionary of the English Language, not just a dictionary of the English language.[5] Patriotism aside, Noah Webster’s dictionary was a monumental achievement. To this day, the name Webster is inseparable with the word “dictionary” to most people in the United States.

Related Events:

Sources:

[1] Richard M. Rollins, The Long Journey of Noah Webster, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980), 125.

[2] Ibid., 123.

[3] Ibid., 124.

[4] Ibid., 131.

[5] Ibid., 126.


1828: Construction Begins on Baltimore and Ohio Railroad

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On July 4, 1828, construction began on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad was the first railway projected westward over the Allegheny Mountains to the Ohio Valley.[1] The railroad was created so that the city of Baltimore could compete with the booming business that New York City was experiencing as a result of the construction of the Erie Canal.[2] Businessman on the East coast wanted to find a faster, more efficient way of transporting goods from the Midwest.[3] The construction of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad resulted in the emergence of Baltimore as one of the major cities in the United States. Between the years 1830 and 1860, the population of Baltimore nearly tripled.[4] The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad also played a very important role during the Civil War, as it served as the only rail line leading to Washington, D.C.[5] The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, like the Erie Canal, helped to strengthen the American economy as it improved transportation efficiency. It was one of the first major railroads in an era when the railroad would reign supreme.

Related Events:

1830: First Steam Engine in America 1877: B/O Railroad Strike

Sources:

[1] Malcolm J Rohrbough, ed., Encyclopedia of American History, (New York: Facts on File, Inc. 2003), 40.

[2] Ibid., 39.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 40.

[5] Ibid., 39.


1830: Indian Removal Act

From Bensonwiki

Description


Long before 1830 southern Indian tribes had ceded over 20 million acres of their land through federal treaties to white settlers, but continued expansionism convinced settlers that they needed more land that the Indians occupied[1]. Until the election of 1828 the government had been successful in pacifying Indian-settler tensions but the election of Andrew Jackson brought about major changes in governmental Indian policy[2]. Jackson was a firm believer that Indians were incapable of adapting to American society, and for their own preservation and protection, they should move “away from white encroachment”[3]. Jackson also felt incredible pressure from the American people who desired the lands owned by the Indians, and who feared Indian attacks as they surged westward[4]. Jackson pushed for Indian removal and despite much objection from many that considered it morally unforgivable, on May 28, 1830 the Indian Removal Act passed by a slim majority in the Senate. The bill allows the President the right to remove any Indian tribe from their lands east of the Mississippi River, provided that the tribe was given lands of equal value in the West. Furthermore, the President was restricted from selling or giving any of the new lands to anyone other than the specified Indian tribes. The government also guaranteed the Indians protection and promised to provide aid to furnish necessary protection during relocation process[5]. While this bill looked fair on paper the execution of this policy was chaotic, corrupt, and heart wrenching and resulted in the loss of thousands of Indian lives along the trail to the west. This removal process is often referred to as the Trail of Tears[6].


Related Events:

1838:Cherokee Trail of Tears, 1831:Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1832:Worchester v. Georgia, 1830:Treaty of Dancing Rabbit, 1830:Treaty of Praire du Chien


Sources:

[1]. Mary Hershberger, “Mobilizing Women, Anticipating Abolition: The Struggle against Indian Removal in the 1830s,”The Journal of American History, Vol. 86, No.1. (June 1999), pp.15-40.[Jstor:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8723%28199906%3A1%3C15%3AMWAATS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P accessed 4 November 2006]. [2]Ibid.,15-40. [3]Ibid.,15-40. [4]Encyclopedia of American History: Expansion and Reformation 1813 to 1855, 2003 ed., “Indian Removal Act,”181-183. [5] Baltimore, Maryland,Niles Weekly Register , May 1830. [6]Encyclopedia of American History, 181-183.


1830: Jefferson Birthday Dinner

From Bensonwiki

Description


On April 13th, 1830 a group of the leading politicians in Washington, including the president and the vice president, congregated for a banquet celebrating Thomas Jefferson’s birthday. Tensions were high among those in attendance due to controversial passing of the tariff of 1828 and South Carolina’s nullification of the tariff they considered “abominable.” States rights supporters believed that South Carolina had every right to choose to nullify the tariff, while non states rights supporters believed that states had no right to nullify a government-implemented policy. States’ rights supporter Robert Y. Hayne gave the dinner speech which was followed by several toasts that included a mixture of states’ rights and non-states’ rights sentiment[1][2]. After several minutes the talk and toasts subsided and all eyes turned to President Andrew Jackson to make a toast. Most of the audience anticipated thatJackson would toast to states rights because he was historically known to be in favor of states’ rights principles, but instead Jackson lifted his glass and uttered “Our Federal Union. It must be preserved.” After several seconds of silence Vice President John C. Calhoun raised his glass and spoke in opposition to Jackson’s toast, “The Union, next to our liberties, the most dear.”[3].

This toast marked the official beginning of the rift between President Jackson and his Vice President Calhoun which ultimately led to Calhoun’s resignation as vice president. Before the dinner Jackson’s position on the tariff had been somewhat unknown but Jackson’s declaration of loyalty to the preservation of the Union revealed that Southern states’ righter supporters would not find a friend in Jackson. This hatred of Jackson would ultimately help lead to the creation of the anti-Jackson party, the Whigs, in 1883[4].


Related Events:

1828:Tariff of 1828, 1830:Peggy Eaton Affair, 1832:Nullification Crisis, 1832:Olive Branch Treaty,1833:Creation of Whig Party, 1833:Force Bill

Sources:

[1]Harry L. Watson,Liberty and Power: (Farrar: Noonday Press, 1990),120-121. [2]“Extract of a Letter to the Editor,”The Banner of the Constitution, 22 May 1830, p. 355. [3]Watson,Liberty,120-121[accessed by American Periodical Series]. [4]Claude G. Bowers,The Party Battles of the Jackson Period: (New York:Octagon Books Inc., 1965), 103.


1830: 1st Wagon to Cross Rocky Mountains

From Bensonwiki

Description

On April 10, 1830 a wagon train led by Jedediah Smith and Rocky Mountain Fur Company partner William Sublette began its 500 miles trip from the Missouri River to the Pacific coast, making it the first wagon train to successfully travel through the Rockies. The wagon train used the newly rediscovered South Pass to get to the coast. The discovery of the South Pass, the best passable and shortest route through the mountains, was extremely important to West coast settlement and is considered the “universal route to the west,”of the time, by modern scholars[1]. This trip also proved that families could make the journey safely with wagons and livestock. “Heavily loaded wagons and even milk cows can safely and rather easily cross the praries and the Rockies (through the South Pass) and go on to the Pacific Ocean.”[2] The discovery of the South Pass saw a huge increase in traffic on the Oregon, California, and Mormon Trails and as result more conflict with Indian tribes living along the trails[3].



Related Events:

1849: California Gold Rush, 1850: California gains statehood, 1859: Oregon gains statehood

Sources:

[1]Encyclopedia of American History: Expansion and Reformation 1813 to 1855, 2003 ed.,322. [2]Chronicle of America,(Mount Kisco, NY: Chronicle Publications, 1989),290. [3]Encyclopedia,255.


1830: Mexico Outlaws American Immigrants

From Bensonwiki

Description


In 1821 Mexico declared its independence from Spain. Before granting Mexico its independence Spain, in an effort to colonize settlers in the Tejas territory, who were predominately American, hired “empresarios,” individuals from America, to serve as middlemen between the Spanish government and the American settlers[1][2]. After the transfer of governmental power from the hands of the Spanish to the Mexicans, there was much concern from the empresarios that the contract between the government and the settlers would be annulled. Between 1820 and 1830 empresarios advertised and successfully moved hundreds of American families to Tejas[3]. Initially the Mexican government allowed for the continuation of this immigration policy, but by the end of 1829 there were 20,000 American settlers in Tejas, and Americans outnumbered Mexicans 4 to 1. Mexicans feared that the continued allowance of this trend in Mexico would yield a Tejas that was no longer Mexican but American[4]. Disagreement on the issue of slavery fueled by Mexico’s decision to abolish slavery in its 1826 constitution, and the continued loyalty of the settlers to America only served to further the conflict between Mexico and its American settlers[5]. On April 6, 1830, Mexican president Vincente Guerrero, declared the importation of blacks in to Mexico illegal and prohibited further settlement of immigrants from the United States to Tejas.[6]. This policy created outrage among Tejans against the Mexican government, who they felt were “[infringing] on their liberties,”[7] and it was this discontent with the government that helped spur support for the independence movement of the territory manifested in the Texas Revolution 1835[8].


Related Events:

1835:Texas Revolution,1846:Mexican-American War


Sources:

[1]Encyclopedia of American History: Expansion and Reformation 1813 to 1855, 2003 ed., “Texas,”338. [2]Eugene C. Barker, “The Influence of Slavery in the Colonization of Texas,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 11, No.1 (June 1924), pp. 3-36.[Jstor:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-391X%28192406%2911%3A1%3C3%3ATIOSIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6 accessed 4 November 2006] [3]Encyclopedia. [4]Neil Wenborn,The U.S.A.: A Chronicle in Pictures,(New York: Reed International Books Limited, 1991), 93 [5]Barker,Influence,3-36. [6]Ibid,3-36. [7]Encyclopedia. [8]Ibid.


1830: Petticoat Affair

From Bensonwiki

Description


In 1829, just before being inaugurated Secretary of War John Henry Eaton married the beautiful widow Margaret “Peggy” Timberland. Peggy Eaton was the well known daughter of a prominent tavern owner in Washington who was known for being unconventional “frivolous, wayward [and] passionate” woman[1]. The socialites of Washington accused Peggy of being “intimate” with John Eaton before they were married and even while her husband was still alive. Their marriage was under constant scrutiny from Andrew Jackson’s cabinet and their wives[2]. The “petticoat war” as it was termed involved cutting Peggy Eaton out of all social gatherings and ignoring her at all functions that she did attend[3]. Jackson appalled by the actions of his cabinet, sympathized with the Eatons. Having delt with similar criticism regarding his wife Rachel Donelson, who was at the time she married Jackson still married to her first husband[4], Jackson understood the horrors of being snubbed by one’s contemporaries, and fought hard to force the ladies of Washington, including John. C Calhoun’s wife, and his own niece Emily Donelson, to include Peggy in society. However, all of Jacksons attempts proved futile and the Eatons remained detested throughout John Eaton’s term as Secretary of War[5]. The “ostracism” of John Eaton and his wife thwarted the Cabinet’s “harmony” and crippled Jackson’s government from the start. There is little actual reason as to why the Petticoat affair became so important to the socialites of Washington but it may have been due to an increasingly widespread panic in Washington, that “America was losing its republican virtue.”[6]. It also intensified the hostility between Jackson, Vice President Calhoun, and the cabinet which eventually led to the resignation of Jackson’s cabinet in 1831[7].


Related Events:

1830:Jefferson Birthday dinner, 1831:Resignation of Jackson’s cabinet

Sources:

[1]Harry L. Watson,Liberty and Power: (Farrar: Noonday Press, 1990),100. [2]Ibid.,100. [3]Kirsten E. Wood,“One Woman so Dangerous to Public Morals”: Gender and Power in the Eaton Affair,”,Journal of the Early Republic, Vol.17, No. 2 (Summer 1997), pp. 237-275[accessed through JSTOR, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0275-1275%28199722%2917%3A2%3C237%3A%22WSDTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F]. [4]Ibid.,246. [5]Queena Pollack,Peggy Eaton: Democracy’s Mistress: (New York: Minton, Balch & Co.,1931),118. [6]Watson,Liberty,104. [7]Ibid.,124-126.


1830: First Steam Engine in America

From Bensonwiki

Description

On August 28, 1830 the first American made steam engine, Tom Thumb, engineered by Peter Cooper, made its first run from Baltimore to Endicott’s Mill Maryland on the Baltimore &Ohio Railroad[1]. Around the same time the South Carolina Canal & Railroad asked the House of Representatives to grant them the rights to sell stock in their railroad and, in turn, with that capital build a railroad that would run from Charleston to the Savannah River and other parts of the state[2]. With governmental permission construction of the railway began. The original railways were constructed by the use of wooden rails with iron capped tops. Many railroads in the North still relied on animal power to pull the cars, but the engineers of South-Carolina Rail Road Company insisted upon the use of the revolutionary steam engine[3]. On December 25th the first steam powered passenger train made its first run in Charleston. It was the first full time passenger train and the first train to offer regular U.S. mail carrying services[4].The use of railroads revolutionized passenger travel and the transportation of resources and consumer goods throughout the South.


Related Events:

1833:Charleston and Hamburg Railroad completed, 1843:Louisville, Cincinnati,and Charleston Railroads merge to become South Carolina Rail Road, 1881: reorganized as South Carolina Railway Co.

Sources:

[1]Neil Wenborn,The U.S.A.: A Chronicle in Pictures,(New York,SMITHMARK Publishers Inc.,1991),93. [2]Balitmore, Maryland,Niles' Weekly Register,27 March 1830,97. [3]Robert E. Carlson, “British Railroads and Engineers and the Beginings of American Railroad Development,” The Business History Review, Vol. 34, No.2 ( Summer, 1960),147[ Jstor: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-6805%28196022%2934%3A2%3C137%3BRAEAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W, accessed 4 November 2006]. [4]Aiken County Historical Markers,<http://www.abgs.org/markers/aiken/AikenM.htm&gt; [accessed 5 November 2006].


1830: Pre-emption Act of 1830

From Bensonwiki

Description


With increased westward expansion during the 19th century the United States federal government found itself in continued conflict with the sale of public lands. In 1800 a credit system was set up to help farmers and westward settlers with the unaffordable costs of the lands they sought[1]. However the financial Panic of 1819, made it impossible for many farmers to ever be capable of paying for lands they had purchased on government credit[2]. In response to this inability to pay for lands purchased, the government passed the Land Act of 1820. This act ended the government credit system and reduced the minimum amount of land that could be purchased to 160 acres and lowered the price to $1.25 per acre[3].By 1830, 22,500,000 acres of government land had been sold to land thirsty settlers[4], however Americans were not satisfied with how much land they had claimed. Pressure for more lenient land policies led to Congress passing the Pre-emption Act in 1830.This act granted all settlers that had moved to the “public domain” or government land, and had plowed and planted a piece of land in 1829, without paying the $1.25 per acre cost, a one years grace period to pay off their debts to the government[5]. Before 1830, these “squatters,” settlers illegally on government land, would have been removed or heavily fined for trespassing on public domain; however this policy gave these settlers a chance to claim land they might not have previously been able to claim. However a major problem that arose from this pre-emption was a huge increase in the amount of speculation. Speculators in an effort to make huge profits would hire blacks and Indians to live on their lands and eventually sell the cultivated land to the highest bidder[6].


Related Events:

1785:Land Ordinance of 1785, 1787:The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, 1800: Land Act of 1800, 1819:Panic of 1819, 1820:Land Act of 1820

Sources:

[1]Roy M. Robbins, “Preemption-A Frontier Triumph,”The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol.18, No.3.(December,1931),337. [Jstor:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-391X%28193112%2918%3A3%3C331%3APFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T accessed 4 November 2006]. [2]Encyclopedia of American History: Expansion and Reformation 1813 to 1855 , 2003 ed., “Agriculture",12. [3]Robbins,Preemption,339. [4]Baltimore, Maryland,Niles’ Weekly Register, 10 April 1830,10-18. [5]Robbins,Preemption,342. [6]Robbins,Preemption,343.


1831: Joseph Henry and Electromagnetic Induction

From Bensonwiki

(There is currently no text in this page)


1831: Garrisons Liberator

From Bensonwiki

(There is currently no text in this page)


1831: Cherokee vs Georgia

From Bensonwiki

Under construction.


1831: McCormick Reaper

From Bensonwiki

(There is currently no text in this page)


1831: Calhouns Fort Hill Address

From Bensonwiki

(There is currently no text in this page)


1831: Nat Turner Rebellion

From Bensonwiki

(There is currently no text in this page)


1832: Election of 1832

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Election of 1832 featured many interesting issues and new traditions. In this election Andrew Jackson defeated Henry Clay with an electoral count of 219 to 49, with William Wirt winning 7 electoral votes and John Floyd capturing South Carolinas 11 electoral votes. In this campaign there were clearly defined party platforms, and political cartoons played a role, as well as the public’s focus on parades. [1] The main issue in this campaign was the Bank War. The bill to re-charter the national bank was vetoed by Jackson on July 10th; he viewed the bank as a monopoly controlled by foreigners owning eight million dollars of bonds. This issue was the one that really differentiated Clay and Jackson; Clay supported the bank and saw it necessary to the American system. [2]

National Party Nomination conventions were also used in this election for the first time. The Democratic Party has held these conventions for every election since 1832, and have been standard practice in every election since, with the exception of the Whigs in 1836. These conventions highlight the national unity of a political party, and the national platforms that the candidates ran with, seem to be another indicating of national party unity. This election signaled a change in politics, the national party strategy and the use of print played a huge role in this election and continue to be important in elections today. [3]

Related Events

Second National Bank,

Sources

[1] Adams, James Truslow. Dictionary of American History (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1940), 282-283 [2] Carruth, Gorton and Associates, Encyclopedia of American Facts and Dates(Thomas Cromwell and Company, 1966), 178 [3] Jameson, J. Franklin and J. W. Buel, Encyclopedic Dictionary of American Reference, (Graham and Co., 1901


1832: Worcester v. Georgia

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Worcester v. Georgia case was argued before the Supreme Court during the January Term in 1832. This case is prefaced by an 1830 law that the state of Georgia passed that required anyone not an Indian to have a license to be on the Cherokee territory in Georgia. This law was passed in December 1830, and required the licensing to come into effect the following February. [1] The law was passed to primarily focus on a limitation of missionaries to the Cherokee territory, as the state thought that this limitation would allow for an expedited removal process. The Cherokee Territory was rich in gold and the state wanted access to this resource. [2]

The state was confronted with a problem when Samuel Worcester and Elizur Butler remained in the Cherokee Territory and refused to obtain the required license. They also refused to accept pardons, and the state tried them for residing on the nation without a license. The defendants were found guilty in Georgia and appealed the case through the Supreme Court. William Wirt argued the case for Worcester, and his argument was that the Georgia state law was not applicable on the Cherokee Nation. [3] Worcester stated, “the accused crimes had been committed at the town of New Echota in the said Cherokee nation and not in the county Gwinnett or elsewhere, within the jurisdiction of this court.” [4] The Supreme Court agreed with Worcester and stated that the state could extend its jurisdiction over the Cherokee nation, and ordered the release of Worcester and Butler. [5]

Related Events

1831: Cherokee vs Georgia , Indian Removal

Sources

[1] Worcester v. State of GA., 31 U.S. 515 (1832). <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=31&invol=515&gt; accessed Nov. 9, 2006 [2] Satz, Ronald N. American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era (University of Nebraska Press, 1975), 48-50 [3] Ibid. 47-49 [4] Worcester v. State of GA [5] Satz, American Indian, 49


1832: Black Hawk War

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Black Hawk War began on April 6 after Black Hawk and the Sac cross the Mississippi River and begin to plant in what was formerly Sac land (given up in the treaty on 1804). This land was settled at the time by white settlers and upon seeing the Indians there was a panic. The settlers mistakenly killed an Indian that was holding a truce flag, and Black Hawk, the chief of the Sac became enraged. Black Hawk then began killing the white settlers. [1]

After this first conflict troops were sent to stop the Sac from further massacres. General Atkinson led the troops and on August second there is a huge killing of the Sac Indians. [2] General Atkinson had a clear advantage against the Sac in sheer numbers; he had over 900 troops to Black Hawk’s 300. The Sac warriors were seen as weak and the Sac tribe is starting to starve in late July, and the federal forces take advantage of the weakness. There is also speculation by the troops that Black Hawk is planning to flee, with the intent to cross the Mississippi River. [3] Black Hawk surrenders on August 27 and the war is concluded at this point. [4]

The Black Hawk War is also interesting as both Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln fought against Black Hawk. They were both occupying minor officer roles, Davis of commissioned troops and Lincoln of volunteer troops. [5]


Relates Events

Treaty of 1804


Sources

[1] Carruth, Gorton and Associates. Encyclopedia of American Facts and Dates, (Thomas Cromwell and Co., 1966), 176 [2] Ibid., 178 [3] “The Indian War”, The Christian Intelligencer and Eastern Chronicle (1827-1836): August 17, 1832. APS Online: [1] (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=1&did=792445352&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1163619118&clientId=43093) [4] Carruth, Encyclopedia, 178 [5] Johnson, Allen and Dumas Malone. Dictionary of American Biography Vol. 5, (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930), 123.


1832: Phrenology Introduced in United States

From Bensonwiki

Description

Phrenology was developed by François Joseph Gall and John Gasper Spurzheim. [1] Phrenology is the idea that someone’s moral and intellectual character can be determined based on the shape of their cranium. This premise was supported by Andrew Jackson and Daniel Webster, especially after phrenologists had concluded extremely favorable readings for them. John Quincy Adams looked at phrenology very skeptically. [2]

Phrenology was introduced to the United States in 1832 by Dr. Spurzheim. Contrary to what we believe today, phrenology was based on the best of the scientific method at the time. This was truly treated as a science at this point in time. There have been some long term applications of ideas that grew out of the introduction of phrenology in the Unites States. The belief that, “mental and emotional defects could be better overcome by cultivating proper attitudes and organs rather than by punishing or suppressing the undesired trait.” [3] The belief has shaped the way that education and penology are today. [4]

In 1832 phrenology was seen as the “chart of the mind.”[5] This was a map of the mind that allowed insight about a person. It was also said at the time on introduction, “phrenology treat of the facilities of the human mind and of the organs by means of which they manifest themselves, but it dos not allow us t predict actions.” [6]

Sources

[1] Riegel, Robert E. “The Introduction of Phrenology to the United States” The American Historical Review, Vol. 39, No. 1 (October 1933) 73-78 [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28193310%2939%3A1%3C73%3ATIOPT T%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9 accessed 13 November 2006] [2] Carruth, Gorton and Associates. Encyclopedia of American Facts and Dates, (Thomas Cromwell and Co., 1966) 177 [3] Riegal, “The Introduction” [4] Ibid, 73-78 [5] “Thoughts on Phrenology” The Ariel. A Semimonthly Literary and Miscellaneous Gazette (1827-1832); March 31, 1832. APS Online. P. 388 [6] “Desultory Selections” The New York Mirror, a Weekly Gazette of Literature and the Fine Arts. September 22, 1832, APS Online p. 91


1832: Ordinance of Nullification

From Bensonwiki

Description

The ideas behind the Ordinance of Nullification were developed by John C. Calhoun in response to the skyscraper Tariff of 1828. The grossly exaggerated duties of the 1828 tariff and subsequent tariffs were hurting the economy of South Carolina. The Nullification was a protest to the grossly exaggerates tariffs. [1] The Ordinance of Nullification was passed in the state of South Carolina on November 24, and it also stated that there could be no appeal of the ordinance outside of the South Carolina Supreme Court. [2] The goal of the Nullification convention was to “suspend the operation of the tariff laws within the state as of the following February 1.”[3]

Nullification brought the issue of states rights to the national stage. [4] South Carolinians also argued that the nullification was simply another form of check and balance in the federal government. There is also a debate over the legality of nullification, and Calhoun argues the idea that, “the advocates of state rights, many of whom have accepted the right of secession must logically accept nullification.” [5] The issue of nullification was concluded in the Compromise of 1833, where the tariff was reduced gradually. South Carolina received much of what it wanted in the compromise. [6]

Related Events

1833: The Compromise Tariff, 1828: Tariff of 1828

Sources

[1] Jameson, Franklin and J. W. Buel, Encyclopedia Dictionary of American Reference Vol. 2, (Graham, 1901), 46. [2] Carruth, Gorton and Associates. Encyclopedia of American Facts and Dates, (Thomas Cromwell and Co., 1966)177 [3]Wilson, Clyde N. The papers of John C Calhoun Vol. XI (University of South Carolina Press, 1978), xxxix [4] Jameson, Encyclopedic, 46 [5]Ibid, xxxviii [6] Morris, Richard B. Encyclopedia of American History, (Harper Brothers Publishers, 1953), 491.


1832: Resignation of Calhoun

From Bensonwiki

Description

John C Calhoun was the Vice President of the United States from 1825 until he resigned in December of 1832. Calhoun was elected with President Andrew Jackson in 1828, and tensions began to form and intensify after the election. Calhoun breaks ideologically with Jackson in 1830. Nullification was a big issue the Calhoun, and after the passing of the Tariff of 1828, a grossly exaggerated tariff, Calhoun began to develop the idea of nullification. [1] Calhoun shifts his position from a nationalist to a state nationalist with the issue on nullification, and this issue is what ultimately leads to his resignation of the Vice Presidency. [2]

Calhoun officially resigned on December 28, 1832. His letter of resignation to the Secretary of State reads, “Having concluded to accept of a sea in the senate, to which I have been elected to by the legislature of this state, I herewith resign the office of Vice-President of the Unites States.” [3] Calhoun took Hayne’s seat in the US Senate; Hayne was promoted the governorship of South Carolina. [4] The timing on Calhoun’s resignation is also interesting, the South Carolina legislature elected Calhoun to the Senate only two days after Jackson responded to Nullification. [5] Calhoun’s Senate seat was on opportunity to lobby for South Carolina’s interests, as Calhoun’s shift to state nationalist was completed at this shift.

Related Events

1828: Tariff of 1828, 1832: Ordinance of Nullification, 1832: Election of 1832,

Sources

[1] Jameson, Franklin and J. W. Buel, Encyclopedia Dictionary of American Reference Vol. 2, (Graham, 1901), 46 [2] Bartlett, Irving H. John C Calhoun, A Biography (WW Norton and Company, 1993) [3] Wilson, Clyde N. The papers of John C Calhoun Vol. XI (University of South Carolina Press, 1978), 685 [4] Thatcher, Oliver J. The Library of Original Sources (University Extension Research 1907) [5] Bartlett, John C Calhoun


1833: The Force Bill

From Bensonwiki

On March 2, 1833 The Revenue Collection Bill or “Force Bill” was passed by Andrew Jackson authorizing the use of Federal Powers to enforce the Compromise Tariff. This Bill was passed in response to South Carolina’s threat of nullification of the Tariff of 1828 and 1832. The Bill was approved overwhelmingly by the House 149-48 and again overwhelmingly in the Senate 32-1. It was Andrew Jackson’s desire to quash forever more the threats of nullification that had been rumbling in South Carolina. The Force Bill can actually be seen as a two-pronged fork (along with the Compromise Tariff) produced by President Andrew Jackson to reconcile the problems caused by the Tariff of 1828, or the Tariff of Abominations and the subsequent Tariff of 1832. There had been rumblings in South Carolina for a few years as to how to respond to the Tariff and the Fire Eaters prevailing in South Carolina threatened at first nullification and when nullification was disallowed secession soon followed. In order to prevent the Union from being torn apart Henry Clay produced the Compromise Tariff of 1833 significantly lowering the duties imposed by the earlier Tariffs and at the same time Jackson pioneered the Force Bill, which was intended to enforce the collection of duties that the Tariff called for. The response to the Force Bill was South Carolina nullifying it but with the Compromise of 1833 passed and a general Southern dislike for Secession the crisis of nullification and Secession was avoided.1

Related Events

1828: Tariff of 1828 1832: Tariff of Abominations 1832: Nullification Ordinance 1833: Olive branch Tariff 1833: Force Bill Nullification

Sources

1 Isaac Hayne, "A Report" (18 March, 1833)in Massachusetts General Court State Papers on Nullification (New York: Da Capo Press, 1970) 363-375; William W Frehling, Prelude to Civil War the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina 1816-1836, (New York and London: Harper and Rowe Publishers, 1965) 260-264


1833: The Compromise Tariff

From Bensonwiki

The Compromise Tariff was passed by Andrew Jackson March 2, 1833 the same day as the Force Bill. It was designed to appease the Nullificationists in South Carolina while at the same time protecting the interests of burgeoning Industry. It was architected by Henry Clay with the aid of John Calhoun, unlikely compatriots, and was hotly contested in the Senate and House. It passed the House 119 to 85 on February 26 and subsequently passed the Senate with a vote of 29 to 16. This tariff was a response to the earlier tariffs of 1828 and 1832 designed to pacify the tensions growing in South Carolina over the issue of nullification. It advocated a final reduction of duties to a flat 20% y 1842, a much lower number than the South Carolinian legislature called for and was seen as a particularly low design for Henry Clay to produce being that his party affiliation was stoutly Whig. Calhoun, staunchly Democratic and lauded opposition of Henry Clay on many measures was convinced to vote for this measure and in so doing, by virtue of his influence, allowed for the quick remediation of the South Carolina crisis and the ultimate result was the repealment of the nullification ordinance. It is also important to note that Clay’s compromise tariff is an adaptation of an earlier proposal put forth by Verplanck but the earlier bill did not carry the weight of Clay and Calhoun’s influence so it was unsuccessful.1

Related Events

1828:Tariff of 1828 1832 Tariff of Abominations 1833 The Force Bill

Sources

1 Isaac Hayne, "A Report" (18 March, 1833)in Massachusetts General Court State Papers on Nullification (New York: Da Capo Press, 1970) 363-375; William W Frehling, Prelude to Civil War the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina 1816-1836, (New York and London: Harper and Rowe Publishers, 1965) 260-264; Carl Schurz, Henry Clay, (Boston and New York Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1899) 8-20


1833: American Anti-Slavery Society

From Bensonwiki

On December 4, 1833 the American Anti-Slavery Society (AASS) released its Declaration of sentiments thus becoming an organization devoted to the principle “that the slaves ought instantly to be set free, and brought under the protection of the law.”1 The AASS was founded by 62 members running the gamut of parties invested in the abolition issue. The founding membership included 21 Quakers, 4 of whom were women and 3 black men along with the rest being spearheaded by wealthy New York businessmen Arthur and Lewis Tappan who represented influential evangelical businessmen taking an ever increasing interest in the abolitionist agenda. William Lloyd Garrison, the editor of the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator, was the founder of the AASS an ardent supporter and arguably the founder of the immediatist school of abolition. The ultimate foundation of the AASS lay in the first Black National Convention held in Philadelphia to which Garrison was an attendee. At this convention it was determined that an immediatist organization be established but furor surrounding the Nat Turner rebellion prevented its creation in 1831. The stance of the AASS was a thoroughly radical one bent on immediate abolition without compensation, and for equal protection and appreciation under the law. This stance creates an uproar in Southern constituencies and the societies dissemination of abolitionist sentiment spurs the blockade of mail by Southern postmasters and ultimately the gag rule. It is finally dissolved with the ratification of the 15th amendment in 1870.2


Related Events

1841: Anti-Slavery Lecture Frederick Douglass 1833: British Emancipation 1862: Emancipation Procalamation 1865: Thirteenth Ammendment Passed

Sources

1. William Lloyd Garrison "Declaration of Sentiments" (4 December, 1833) eds. Lawrence B. Goodheart, Hugh Hawkins The Abolitionists Means Ends and Motivations, (Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995) 46

2. Stanley Harold, American Abolitionists, (Essex, Pearson Education Limited, 2001) 32-35


1833: British Emancipation

From Bensonwiki

The Bill for British Emancipation was introduced into the House of Commons on July 5 and passed on August 29. This abolition and its aftermath in England left a great amount of supporters loyal to the cause of international abolition without anything to do. So an influential minority of English abolitionists, deprived of a cause at home, migrate to the United States with the express cause of advocating immediate abolition. Also, the abolitionist climate in England surrounding abolition deeply influences many abolition leaders, Garrison most notably. In fact, Garrison had significant contact with English abolitionists both by correspondence and also during his journeys to England. In fact, Just before the creation of the America Anti-Slavery Society in Philadelphia Garrison had spent a time in England, discussing the impetus of abolition in America and overseas. With British Emancipation ratified and the radical abolitionist coming from England to America with radical notions of equality and freedom the push for American abolition becomes very strong indeed. In fact it is during this period of the early to mid 1830s that the notions of emancipation are at their most radical, advocating equality, immediate abolition and arguing that there should be no compensation thus incensing the South and creating an atmosphere of tension. This tension leads to such things as the gag rule and other motions in the South to prevent the abolitionist message from reaching slaves, especially with the recent Turner rebellion which had inflamed Southern sensibilities over slavery into a frenzy.1

Related Events

1833:American Anti-Slavery Society 1834:British Abolish Slavery 1838: End of Mandatory Apprenticeships in British Empire 1862: Emancipation Proclamation 186:5 13th Amendment


Sources

William Law Mathieson, British Slavery and its Abolition, (New York, Otagon Books Inc, 1967) 240-242


1833: Nullification of the Force Bill

From Bensonwiki

The nullification of the Force Bill and the acceptance of the Compromise Tariff in South Carolina March 18th and 15th 1833 respectively, can be understood as a twofold measure to at both times acquiesce to the demands of the federal government and almost in the same breath defy it. By nullifying the Force Bill South Carolina presumed to nullify the Federal Army, which was seen as ludicrous by one of nullifications strong supporters Sen. McDuffie. The discrepancy made by this nullification was that allegiance and obedience was due to the state but only obedience not necessarily allegiance was due the federal government. This argument between Unionist supporters and champions of Nullification bleeds over into the concept and eventual creation of the “ironclad oath” which was an oath to be sworn by all South Carolinian officials and more importantly militia commanders that asked for allegiance to the state of South Carolina and to uphold the Constitution of the state and Federal government. This oath was used as a litmus test by Unionists for supporters of Nullification in South Carolina and ferreted out the issue of slavery as it pertained to State Rights. Finally the militia oath which, asked commanders to bear allegiance to South Carolina, was appealed and in succeeding cases all vestiges of the support for nullification were appealed. The Nullification of the Force Bill, then, is interpreted as a last ditch effort for South Carolina to preserve its states rights in the shadow of an ever growing Federal power.1

Related Events

1832: Nullification Ordinance 1833: Force Bill

Sources

1. David Duncan Wallace, The History of South Carolina II, (New York, The American Historical Society, 1934) 445-452; Isaac Hayne, "A Report" (18 March, 1833)in Massachusetts General Court State Papers on Nullification (New York: Da Capo Press, 1970) 363-375


1834: Senate Censure of Jackson

From Bensonwiki

Description

On March 28, 1834, a motion of censure passed the Senate which reprimanded President Jackson for allegedly assuming unconstitutional power by vetoing the National Bank’s re-chartering and ordering its deposits to be removed to state pet banks. The motion for the censure resolution was conceived of by leading Anti-Jacksonian Henry Clay in a December 1833 speech. The passage of the censure resolution was remarkable in that it represented the highest form of a direct political attack on the president. Clay and his colleagues even suspected that they would then be in a position to restore the nation according to their own design because Jackson’s career would be ruined. Despite the grave charge, Jackson managed to retain his dignity and strong political support. Jackson was understandably furious and in his defense, he revolutionized the notion of the presidency irrevocably: he drastically broke from classical republican ideals and claimed that the president should exercise power in conjunction with the public will. He believed that the veto of the National Bank was simply an extension of popular opinion. On April 15, Jackson requested that the censure be removed from the Senate record; however, the Senate did not relent. Despite this failure, Jackson’s new conception of the presidency and its implicit reflection of the nature of the Democratic Party clearly prevailed as Democrats handily won the midterm elections in 1834.1

Related Events

1832 Jackson Veto of National Bank 1833 Jackson Removal of Deposits to Pet Banks 1833 Clay's Speech Against Jackson 1834 Democrats Dominate Whigs in Elections

Footnotes

1 H.W. Brands, Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times, (New York: Doubleday, 2005), 498-502; Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Democracy Vol. III, (New York: Harper and Row, 1984), 124-127, 153-159; Robert Seager II, ed., The Papers of Henry Clay, Vol. VIII, (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1984), 685.


1834: Creation of Whig Party

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Anti-Jacksonian political alliance was formally named the Whig Party in a Henry Clay speech on April 14, 1834 in a reaction to President Andrew Jackson’s perceived overextension of executive power by vetoing the National Bank, withdrawing funds into “pet” state banks, and to a lesser degree, his handling of the Nullification Crisis. The party borrowed its name from the homonymous anti-monarchy party of England; the name also carried with it a potent connotation of colonial patriotism during the American Revolution. The Whigs initially were a heterogeneous mix of middle and upper class businessmen, industrialists, abolitionists, Evangelical Christians, Anti-Masons, opponents of Indian removal, supporters of the state right of nullification, and any other federalist remnants of the temporary National Republican Party formed in the mid 1820s. Despite these sometimes conflicting interests among Whigs, at the center of Whig ideology was Henry Clay’s American System to provide for national growth through protective tariffs, construction of internal improvements such as roads and canals, and a national bank to establish a uniform currency and credit for industrial investment.1

This political system became known as the Second United States’ Party System. For the first time since the absolution of the Federalist Party in the 1810s there was a political party strong enough to counter Democratic power. The Whigs were oddly conservative on social issues but progressive concerning the economy; they encouraged modernity in industry, technology, and work ethic while they cowered from social changes such as racial tolerance and the possibility of socioeconomic equality.2

Related Events

1832 National Bank Veto 1833 National Bank Fund Transfers 1833 Nullification Crisis 1840 Whig William Henry Harrison Wins Presidency 1854 Creation of Republican Party

Footnotes

1 Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Democracy, Vol. III, (New York: Harper and Row, 1984), 136-140; Daniel Walker Howe, "The Evangelical Movement and Political Culture in the North During the Second Party System," The Journal of American History, 77,4 (March, 1991), 1223-1226. [JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/view/00218723/di975295/97p00042/0?currentResult=00218723%2bdi975295%2b97p00042%2b0%2cFFFFFF01&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26Query%3Devangelical%2Bmovement%2BAND%2Bhowe Accessed 2 October 2005]; Arthur Charles Cole, The Whig Party in the South, (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1962), 15-17, 30-31; Louis P. Masur, 1831, (New York: Hill and Wang, 2001), 96-98; Charles Sellers, The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 362-363.

2 Remini, Andrew Jackson, 140; Daniel Walker Howe, The Political Culture of the American Whigs, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) 12, 301-302.


1834: Austin Arrested

From Bensonwiki

Description

Stephen F. Austin, who was widely recognized as the Father of Texas, was arrested in Saltillo, Mexico on January 3, 1834 on charges of sedition against the Mexican government. Following a convention of Texans at San Felipe in October 1832 in which an extralegal constitution claiming separation from the province of Coahuila was adopted, Austin was chosen to go to Mexico City to appeal to Mexican president/dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna on behalf of Texas. When he was ignored, Austin angrily wrote a letter, which he believed represented the interests of all Anglo Texans, to the town of San Antonio on October 2, 1833, urging it to create its own local government independent of Coahuila. For these words Austin was jailed from February until Christmas Day, 1834 for plotting to overthrow the Mexican government.1

Even though early in Austin’s imprisonment Mexico relaxed some restrictions on Texas, in May, Santa Anna abandoned his liberal reforms to become a dictatorial conservative Centrist. Considering this fact in light of his imprisonment, Austin became convinced in 1834 to abandon his longstanding moderate and pacifistic views of gradual Texas liberty. Even after he was released from prison, he remained in the capital to continue arguing for Texas independence. Austin’s imprisonment therefore inalterably emboldened him to the cause of Texas independence of which he would assume prominent positions as commander-in-chief of Texas volunteer troops and diplomat to the United States in 1835.2

Related Events

1832 Convention of San Felipe 1833 Austin Appointed to Negotiate with Mexico on Behalf of Texas 1833 Austin's Letter to San Antonio 1835 Austin Appointed Commander-in-Chief of Texas Volunteers 1835 Austin Appointed Diplomat to US 1836 Texas Revolution 1836 Austin's death

Footnotes

1 Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin: Empresario of Texas, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 269-271, 296; A Gentleman of Philadelphia, "Texas and Its Revolution," Southern Literary Messenger, 7,6 (June, 1841), 412. [MOA: http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moajrnl;cc=moajrnl;q1=stephen%20austin;rgn=full%20text;view=image;seq=0410;idno=acf2679.0007.006;node=acf2679.0007.006%3A17, Accessed 14 November 2006]

2 Cantrell, Austin, 300, 303, 307, 316, 326; Eugene Barker, Mexico and Texas, (New York: Russell & Russell, 1965), 132-134; Andres Tijerina, Tejanos and Texas Under the Mexican Flag, (College Station: Texas A&M Press, 1994), 134-135; J.D.B. Debow, "Texas-A Province, Republic, and State," Debow's Review 23,3 (September, 1857), 247-249. [MOA: http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moajrnl;cc=moajrnl;q1=stephen%20austin;rgn=full%20text;view=image;seq=0243;idno=acg1336.1-23.003;node=acg1336.1-23.003%3A2, Accessed 14 November 2006]


1834: 2nd Coinage Act

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Second Coinage Act, passed on June 28, 1834 and effective from July 31, readjusted the silver to gold ratio in the United States from 15:1 set by the First Coinage Act of 1792 to 16:1. This act was precipitated by a widespread fear among hard-money advocates like Senator Thomas Hart Benton, Representative James K. Polk, and Secretary of the Treasury Roger Taney that the undervaluation of gold from the 15:1 ratio was causing it to go out of circulation. To remedy this, the 16:1 ratio was established to create the overvaluation of gold. Since he was known as a champion of specie, President Jackson praised this legislation for increasing the feelings of wealth among common Americans since many farmers despised and distrusted paper currency because it did not represent the true value of a day’s work. Jackson’s obsession with hard money would eventually lead to the Specie Circular of 1836 which would in turn play a large role in exacerbating the Panic of 1837.1

Related Events

1792 First Coinage Act 1836 Specie Circular 1837 Panic of 1837

Footnotes

1 Charles Sellers, The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 337; William N. Chambers, Old Bullion Benton: Senator from the New West, (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1956), 201-202; Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson and the Course of Democracy in America Vol. III, (New York: Harper and Row, 1984), 168-169, 327-329.


1834: British Abolish Slavery

From Bensonwiki

Description

By the terms of the 1833 Abolition Act passed in London, England, on August 1, 1834, all slaves in the British Empire were freed and a sum of 20 million pounds was allotted to compensate slaveholders. Emancipation was the result of an extensive abolitionist campaign which had been growing in England for over half a century. Former slaves were not yet entirely freed by this act; instead, those over the age of six were relegated to the status of unpaid apprentice for six years. While this condition of labor was occasionally as cruel and unpleasant as slavery, the die had been cast that would soon produce complete emancipation in 1838. July 31, 1834 found slaves celebrating in churches throughout the Empire their last day of slavery. The transition from slavery to apprenticeship was largely peaceful and quashed any hopes of Southerners in the United States that former slaves would exhibit any type of disorderly conduct that could be used as a weapon to perpetuate black slavery in the United States. Also contrary to Southerners’ wishes, agricultural production in the colonies seemed to actually increase significantly in some places with emancipation. Thus Southern claims that slavery was the most productive form of black labor were unsubstantiated. Perhaps most importantly to the South, British emancipation resulted in many dedicated British abolitionists turning their gaze toward slavery in the United States. It was largely through their instruction that many Northerners came to champion the cause of abolition beginning in the 1830s.1

Related Events

1831 Jamaica Slave Rebellion 1833 Abolition Act of 1833 1838 End of Mandatory Apprenticeships in British Empire 1862 Emancipation Proclamation 1865 13th Amendment

Footnotes

1 James Walvin, Black Ivory: A History of British Slavery, (Washington D.C.: Howard University Press, 1994), 304-310; Reginald Coupland, The British Anti-Slavery Movement, (London, ENG: Thornton, Butterworth, Ltd, 1933), 143; Philip D. Morgan and Sean Hawkins, eds., Black Experience and the Empire, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 147-148; "British Emancipation," American Anti-Slavery Reporter, 1,8 (August, 1834), 123. [APS: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=1&did=336348901&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1163614057&clientId=43093, Accessed 14 November 2006]; "Effects of Emancipation in the West Indies," Niles' Weekly Register, 1,1 (September 3, 1836), 10. [APS: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=4&did=776105212&SrchMode=1&sid=5&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1163614407&clientId=43093, Accessed 14 November 2006].


1835: Andrew Jackson Assassination Attempt

From Bensonwiki

On January 30, 1835, Andrew Jackson, having just attended the funeral of one Warren Davis, passed from the Capital building towards his awaiting carriage. [1] It was in this moment that the aging Jackson, aided by his secretary of the treasury, was confronted by Richard Lawrence. [2] At a range of eight feet, Lawrence aimed and pulled two pre-loaded pistols upon the president, yet the devices did not yield the result that Lawrence had intended; both misfired. Upon failure of the second pistol, Jackson raised his cane and advanced the would be assassin, who, taking flight, was caught moments later.[3] Concerning the assassination attempt, the Democrats supported the notion of a Whig orchestrated conspiracy, whilst the political opposition claimed the whole event was devised by Jackson’s Kitchen Cabinet. This difference in opinion highlights the glaring partisanship that was prevalent during Jackson’s administration. [4] Jackson became convinced that the attack was devised by his political enemy, Whig Senator George Poindexter. Though Jackson organized a specialized senate committee to investigate Poindexter, the committee quickly conceded that Poindexter had no connection to the attack.[5] General opinion held that Lawrence was neither a co-conspirator with Poindexter, nor a pawn of the Kitchen Cabinet, but merely an out of work painter, who acted out of insanity. When Lawrence accused Jackson of killing his father, and then claimed himself to be Richard III of England, the courts quickly declared Lawrence insane. This marked the first assassination attempt upon the President of the United States.[6]

Related Events

1828: Election of Andrew Jackson

1865: Lincoln Assassinated

1834: Creation of Whig Party

Sources

[1] Atlanta, Georgia, The Atlanta Constitution, 15 September 1901. Online.

[2] New York, New York, New York Evangelist, 7 February 1835. Online.

[3] Glyndon G. Van Deusen, The Jacksonian Era: 1828-1848, (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), 99-100.

[4] Richard C. Rohrs, “Partisan Politics and the Attempted Assassination of Andrew Jackson”, Journal of the Early Republic > Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer, 1981), 149-163. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0275-1275%28198122%291%3A2%3C149%3APPATAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0, Accessed 18 October 2006]

[5] Cole, Donald B. Cole, The Presidency of Andrew Jackson, (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1993), 221-222.

[6] New York, New York, New York Times, 21 May 1972. Online.


1835: The Second Seminole War

From Bensonwiki

It was in late December, 1835, that the Second Seminole War broke out in Florida. Caused primarily by misinformation from the federal government regarding westward emigration, the Seminole Indians retaliated with force against those who sought to remove them. A key part of Jacksonian Democracy, Indian Removal was a priority for white settlers looking to expand to the south and west. [1] The Seminoles sought justice after the American Government did not adhere to the Moultrie Creek treaty which gave them a prolonged period of time for which they could reside in central Florida. Instead, a treaty of Payne’s Landing had been issued, one that was contradictory to Moultrie Creek and claimed that the Seminoles must vacate the land by 1837, though the government sought to remove them quicker.[2] Under the young and brash war chief, Osceola, the Seminoles sparked the war by attacking a column of U.S. soldiers heading to Fort King. When the skirmish ceased, not a white man was left alive. [3] The Seminole war party celebrated with drunken revelry that night, confident in their victory over the white man. On New Years Eve, 1835, a more serious engagement involving Osceola and General Clinch involved close to 1,000 combatants. This second battle elevated the conflict, gave the Seminoles confidence in Osceola, and this war would disrupt trade, communication and plantations in Florida. [4]

Related Events

1824: Bureau of Indian Affairs Created

1830: Indian Removal Act

1817: The First Seminole War

Sources

[1] Glyndon G. Van Deusen, The Jacksonian Era: 1828-1848, (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), 50.


[2] John K. Mahon, History of the Second Seminole War, 1835-1842, (Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 1967), 85.

[3] George E. Buker, Swamp Sailors : Riverine Warfare in the Everglades, 1835-1842, (Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, 1975), 9; John K. Mahon, History of the Second Seminole War, 1835-1842, (Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 1967), 103-106.

[4] John K. Mahon, History of the Second Seminole War, 1835-1842, (Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 1967), 108-113.


1835: The Second Seminole War

From Bensonwiki

It was in late December, 1835, that the Second Seminole War broke out in Florida. Caused primarily by misinformation from the federal government regarding westward emigration, the Seminole Indians retaliated with force against those who sought to remove them. A key part of Jacksonian Democracy, Indian Removal was a priority for white settlers looking to expand to the south and west. [1] The Seminoles sought justice after the American Government did not adhere to the Moultrie Creek treaty which gave them a prolonged period of time for which they could reside in central Florida. Instead, a treaty of Payne’s Landing had been issued, one that was contradictory to Moultrie Creek and claimed that the Seminoles must vacate the land by 1837, though the government sought to remove them quicker.[2] Under the young and brash war chief, Osceola, the Seminoles sparked the war by attacking a column of U.S. soldiers heading to Fort King. When the skirmish ceased, not a white man was left alive. [3] The Seminole war party celebrated with drunken revelry that night, confident in their victory over the white man. On New Years Eve, 1835, a more serious engagement involving Osceola and General Clinch involved close to 1,000 combatants. This second battle elevated the conflict, gave the Seminoles confidence in Osceola, and this war would disrupt trade, communication and plantations in Florida. [4]

Related Events

1824: Bureau of Indian Affairs Created

1830: Indian Removal Act

1817: The First Seminole War

Sources

[1] Glyndon G. Van Deusen, The Jacksonian Era: 1828-1848, (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), 50.


[2] John K. Mahon, History of the Second Seminole War, 1835-1842, (Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 1967), 85.

[3] George E. Buker, Swamp Sailors : Riverine Warfare in the Everglades, 1835-1842, (Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, 1975), 9; John K. Mahon, History of the Second Seminole War, 1835-1842, (Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 1967), 103-106.

[4] John K. Mahon, History of the Second Seminole War, 1835-1842, (Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 1967), 108-113.


1835: The Great Moon Hoax

From Bensonwiki

From August 25 to August 31, 1835, the New York Sun published six articles detailing the discovery of intelligent life on the moon in what has come to be known as the Great Moon Hoax. The six articles attributed the discoveries to preeminent astronomer Sir John Herschel, but was in fact written under a pseudonym by Cambridge scholar and Sun writer, Richard Adams Locke. [1] The articles attributed the breakthrough to a telescope of epic capabilities, one whose lens was able to traverse the gulf of space and pick up the tiniest of details. [2] Locke presented readers with a vivid word-picture of the life that was teeming on the moon. The Sun amazed its readers with accounts of animal life including goats, bison, cranes, unicorns and a lunar geography littered with oceans, beaches, lush vegetation and quartz pyramids.[3] The most fantastic claim made by the Sun was the discovery of man-bats (dubbed Vespertilio-homo by Locke) seen frolicking around a golden temple. [4] When the Journal of Commerce sought permission to republish the articles, Locke came forward and claimed the articles to be a product of his imagination. On the whole, people were amused by this clever charade, however the ruse was clever to dupe even the most learned of men, including the student body of Yale. [5] Locke’s primary reason for the hoax was to create a fantastic story that would up the sales of the Sun, also to satire the contemporary claims made by other scientists of life on the moon.[6]

Related Events

1833: Publication of the New York Sun

Sources

[1] Wikipedia, “The Great Moon Hoax,” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Moon_Hoax&gt; [Accessed 11 November 2006].

[2] HistoryBuff.com, “The Great Moon Hoax of 1835,” http://www.historybuff.com/library/refmoon.html [Accessed November 11 2006].

[3] New York, New York, New York Sun, 26 August 1835. Online.

[4] New York, New York, New York Sun, 28 August 1835. Online.

[5] Wikipedia, “The Great Moon Hoax,” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Moon_Hoax&gt; [Accessed 11 November 2006; Museum of Hoaxes, “The Great Moon Hoax,” http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/moonhoax.html [13 November 2006].

[6] Wikipedia, “The Great Moon Hoax,” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Moon_Hoax&gt; [Accessed 11 November 2006].


1835: The Texas Revolution Begins

From Bensonwiki

It was in 1835 that Stephen Austin, in reaction to Santa Anna’s dictatorship, urged all Texans take up arms and defend their country. [1] Angered that Santa Anna had thrown out the Constitution of 1824 which had established Mexico as a federalist republic and that Mexican troops were returning to Texas, Austin rallied colonists to the cause of an independent Texas. [2] The situation escalated in October of 1835, when Mexican troops under General Martin Perfecto de Cos, went to seize a cannon from the colonists in Gonzales. Though the cannon was fairly worthless, it became a symbol for the colonists, who protected it, held off a barrage from the Mexican Dragoons, and were the victors of a small engagement that left one Mexican dead. In this moment, the war began. [3] The Army of the People was quickly established under Austin, and the Texans had a string of military victories against the Mexican Army, holding Gonzales and capturing San Antonio in a 5-day long engagement. [4] It was in November that a committee of delegates created a provisional government, issued a Declaration of Causes for their insurrection, and appointed Henry Smith as governor, Sam Houston to Major General and Stephen Austin as commissioners to the United States.[5] By Christmas all of General Cos’ troops had been expelled from Texas, and the second phase of the Revolution was underway. [6]

Related Events

1822: Austin Establishes Settlement in Texas

1834: Austin Arrested

1836: Battle of the Alamo

1830: Mexico Outlaws American Immigrants

1824: The Constitution of 1824

1833: Santa Anna Assumes Dictatorship

1836: Texas Convention of 1836 and the Declaration of Independence

1837: United States recognizes Texas independence

Sources

[1] Richard Bruce Winders, Crisis in the Southwest : The United States, Mexico, and the Struggle Over Texas, (Wilmington, Delaware: SR Books, 2002), 18.

[2] Lewis W. Newton, A Social and Political History of Texas, (Dallas, Texas: Turner, 1935), 147.

[3] Ibid. , 152.

[4] Richard Bruce Winders, Crisis in the Southwest : The United States, Mexico, and the Struggle Over Texas, (Wilmington, Delaware: SR Books, 2002), 18.

[5] Lewis W. Newton, A Social and Political History of Texas, (Dallas, Texas: Turner, 1935), 160.

[6] Ibid., 157.


1836: General Gaines' Expedition

From Bensonwiki

The Second Seminole War was a conflict lasting from 1835 to 1842 spurned by the Seminoles’ refusal to move Westward at the command of the United States government. During 1836, several significant events happened in the course of the war, such as General Gaines’ Expedition. On February 15, General Edmund Pendleton Gaines led an expedition of 980 soldiers from Fort Brooke towards Fort King [1]. Along the way, they happened upon the site of the Dade Massacre which had occurred December 28 of 1835 [2]. After finding Fort King lacking of nearly all supplies on February 22, Gaines and his men marched onward, ending up cornered by the Seminoles on the banks of the Withlacoochee. The soldiers constructed a temporary fortress, which they deemed Camp Izard after Lt. James Izard, the first of their number to fall to the Seminoles [3]. Although Gaines wrote to General Clinch requesting help, Clinch was delayed by General Winfield Scott from coming to Gaines’ aid. Eventually, on March 5, after Gaines and his men had been reduced to slaughtering their horses for food, Clinch disobeyed orders and rushed to Gaines, who was still surrounded by Seminoles. On March 6, Clinch’s troops fired upon the Seminoles, sending them fleeing into the forrest [4]. Two days later, Generals Clinch and Gaines and their troops reached Fort Drane [5].

Sources

[1] John K. Mahon, History of the Second Seminole War. (Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1967), pg. 146.

[2] George E. Buker, Swamp Sailors: Riverine Warfare in the Everglades 1835-1842. (Gainesville, FL: The University Presses of Florida, 1975), pg.16.

[3] John K. Mahon, History of the Second Seminole War. (Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1967), pg. 147.

[4] John K. Mahon, History of the Second Seminole War. (Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1967), pg. 149, 150.

[5] "Article 4-No Title.," Army and Navy Chronicle, 31 March, 1836, APS Online, pg. 196

Related Events

1813-1814: 1st Seminole War

1823: Treaty of Moultrie Creek

1830: Indian Removal Act

1832: Treaty of Payne's Landing

1835: The Second Seminole War

1835: Dade Massacre


Return to SHDB main page


1836: Introduction of the Gag Rule

From Bensonwiki

On March 16, 1836, John C. Calhoun attempted to introduce a measure in the Senate that would silence opposition to slavery. This bill, which came to be known as the “gag rule” declared that it was illegal for a postmaster to distribute abolitionist information in any State where such actions were prohibited [1]. Calhoun feared that the institution of slavery was being threatened and that this would lead to further conflict and possibly even the destruction of the Union [2]. The measure nearly passed, despite the fact that it had the support of only three Northern Senators [3]. Calhoun’s attempt to prevent the distribution of abolitionist material sparked outrage by many who felt it was an infringement on the freedom of the press. As stated by a writer for the Boston Daily Advocate, “the bill itself is an absurdity. Espionage is unconstitutional, except under martial law. It is as abhorrent to our free notions, as a censorship of the press” [4]. The Advocate goes on to argue that “under this law, if any paper contains the word slavery, or an advertisement of a runaway slave, it may be interdicted” [5].

Sources

[1] Arthur, Styron, The Cast Iron Man: John C. Calhoun and American Democracy, (NY: Longmans, Green and Co., 1935), 210.

[2] Charles M. Wiltse, John C. Calhoun: Nullifier, 1829-1839, (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1949), 369.

[3] Arthur Styron, The Cast Iron Man: John C. Calhoun and American Democracy, (NY: Longmans, Green and Co., 1935), 210.

[4] "Slavery: Calhoun's Gag Law." Liberator, 2 April 1836, p.0_1.

[5] "Slavery: Calhoun's Gag Law." Liberator, 2 April 1836, p.0_1.

Related Events

1831/1832-1842: Abolitionist Propoganda

1831/1832-1837: Cent and Mite Donations


Return to SHDB main page


1836: Arkansas Gains Statehood

From Bensonwiki

On June 15, 1836, the territory of Arkansas officially gained statehood, becoming the 25th state in the Union. This was largely due to the effort of Jacksonian Democrats in Washington, who after an all night negotiation of the state constitution, finally succeeded in getting it admitted as a slave state [1]. According to the constitution, “every free white male citizen of the United States, who shall have been a citizen of the state for six months, shall be deemed a qualified elector” [2]. On the eve of the Civil War, Arkansas refused to secede from the Union until President Lincoln authorized the attack of Ft. Sumter in Charleston, SC. On May 6, 1861, Arkansas seceded from the Union, not being readmitted until June of 1868 [3].

Sources

[1] Charles S. Bolton, Arkansas, 1800-1860: Remote and Restless, (Fayetteville, AK: The University of Arkansas Press, 1998), 47.

[2] "Constitution of Arkansas," Niles' Weekly Register, 26 March 1836, 58, APS Online.

[3] John Gould Fletcher, Arkansas, (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1947), 145, 146.

Related Sources

1836: Jacksonian Democrats win the free/slave debate for AK


Return to SHDB main page


1836: Arkansas Gains Statehood

From Bensonwiki

On June 15, 1836, the territory of Arkansas officially gained statehood, becoming the 25th state in the Union. This was largely due to the effort of Jacksonian Democrats in Washington, who after an all night negotiation of the state constitution, finally succeeded in getting it admitted as a slave state [1]. According to the constitution, “every free white male citizen of the United States, who shall have been a citizen of the state for six months, shall be deemed a qualified elector” [2]. On the eve of the Civil War, Arkansas refused to secede from the Union until President Lincoln authorized the attack of Ft. Sumter in Charleston, SC. On May 6, 1861, Arkansas seceded from the Union, not being readmitted until June of 1868 [3].

Sources

[1] Charles S. Bolton, Arkansas, 1800-1860: Remote and Restless, (Fayetteville, AK: The University of Arkansas Press, 1998), 47.

[2] "Constitution of Arkansas," Niles' Weekly Register, 26 March 1836, 58, APS Online.

[3] John Gould Fletcher, Arkansas, (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1947), 145, 146.

Related Sources

1836: Jacksonian Democrats win the free/slave debate for AK


Return to SHDB main page


1836: Death of James Madison

From Bensonwiki

On June 28, 1836, James Madison, the last of the Founding Fathers, died [1] [2]. Madison was known as the Father of the Constitution due to the contributions of his Virginia Plan in the framing of the Constitution. The Virginia Plan, presented at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, favored large states in regards to electoral power as opposed to the New Jersey Plan, which favored smaller states. As outlined in the Virginia Plan, representation in both Houses of Congress would be contingent upon population. While the conflict was eventually resolved in the Connecticut Compromise, it was Madison’s Virginia Plan that made up the majority of the Constitution [3]. Madison also was a major contributor to the Federalist Papers, which offered clarity and insight into the purpose of the Constitution. James Madison served as the fourth president of the United States from 1809 to 1817, and, along with Thomas Jefferson, formed the Republican Party [4].

Sources

[1] "Death of James Madison," The New-Yorker, 2 July 1836, 237, APS Online.

[2] "Death of Mr. Madison," The American Historical Magazine, (June 1836): 239, APS Online.

[3] Ralph Ketcham, James Madison: A Biography, (NY: The Macmillan Company, 1971), 204, 188.

[4] Ralph Ketcham, James Madison: A Biography, (NY: The Macmillan Company, 1971), 331.

Related Events

1787: Constitutional Convention


Return to SHDB main page


1836: Texas Convention of 1836 and the Declaration of Independence

From Bensonwiki

On March 1, 1836, delegates to the Convention of 1836 met in Washington-on-the-Brazos to decide the future of Texas. The 41 delegates had been chosen on February 1 of that year in an election where the citizens of Texas voted primarily for young men who favored action over discussion [1] [2]. While in session, the Convention focused on writing a Declaration of Independence, creating an army, and establishing a government. On March 2, they issued their Declaration of Independence from Mexico, which they modeled after the U.S. Declaration of Independence [3]. Included in the Declaration was a list of grievances with Mexico, much like the colonies’ grievances with Britain [4]. According to the Declaration, Mexico had “ceased to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the people from whom its legitimate powers are derived” [5]. The Convention also wrote a Constitution for the newly formed republic of Texas, in which slavery was accepted as a legal institution. [6]. Interestingly, this Constitution applied to much of the same land that was emancipated by Mexico from 1824-1829 [7]. On March 4, the Convention declared Sam Houston the chief of the Texas army [8]. The Convention came to a close on March 17, 1836, having declared independence from Mexico and established a government.

Sources

[1] Randolph B. Campbell, Gone to Texas: A History of the Lone Star State, (NY: Oxford University Press, 2003), 147.

[2] Herbert P. Gambrell and Lewis W. Newton, A Social and Political History of Texas, (Dallas, TX: Turner Company, 1935), 174.

[3] Travis W. Barnet, "Texas Declaration of Independence," The Albion, A Journal of News, Politics, and Literature, 9 April 1836, 118, APS Online.

[4] Herbert P. Gambrell and Lewis W. Newton, A Social and Political History of Texas, (Dallas, TX: Turner Company, 1935), 175.

[5] Travis W. Barnet, "Texas Declaration of Independence," The Albion, A Journal of News, Politics, and Literature, 9 April 1836, 118, APS Online.

[6] Herbert P. Gambrell and Lewis W. Newton, A Social and Political History of Texas, (Dallas, TX: Turner Company, 1935), 177.

[7] C. Reginald Enock, Mexico: Its Ancient and Modern Civilisation History and Political Conditions Topography and Natural Resources Industries and General Development, (London: Adelphi Terrace, 1909), 119, 120.

[8] Randolph B. Campbell, Gone to Texas: A History of the Lone Star State, (NY: Oxford University Press, 2003), 148.

Related Events

1835: The Texas Revolution Begins

1835: Battle of Gonzales

1824-1829: Mexican Emancipation


Return to SHDB main page


1836: Battle of the Alamo

From Bensonwiki

As perhaps the most decisive and memorable event during the Texas struggle for independence, the Battle of the Alamo lasted for thirteen days [1]. From February 24 to March 6, Mexican forces led by Santa Anna laid siege to 150 Texans, among which was legendary frontiersman, David Crockett, barricaded in the Alamo, an old Spanish mission [2]. The Texans were led by Lieutenant Colonel William B. Travis, who sent the appeal “To the People of Texas and all Americans in the World” [3]. On the South side of the mission, the Mexican forces built a battery against which Travis had only 14 artillery pieces to defend with. On March 2, the remainder of Santa Anna’s force arrived. On March 5, Travis issued one final appeal to the Convention of 1836 asking for help. However, at 4 a.m. on the morning of March 6, Santa Anna ordered his final attack, which only 6 Texans survived. During the course of the siege, between 500 and 600 Mexicans were killed [4].

Sources

[1] Herbert P. Gambrell and Lewis W. Newton, A Social and Political History of Texas, (Dallas, TX: Turner Company, 1935), 171, 172.

[2] Richard Bruce Winders, Crisis in the Southwest: The United States, Mexico, and the Struggle over Texas, (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources Inc., 2002), 23, 24.

[3] Herbert P. Gambrell and Lewis W. Newton, A Social and Political History of Texas, (Dallas, TX: Turner Company, 1935), 172.

[4] Herbert P. Gambrell and Lewis W. Newton, A Social and Political History of Texas, (Dallas, TX: Turner Company, 1935), 172, 173.

Related Events

1835: Battle of Gonzales

1835: The Texas Revolution Begins


Return to SHDB main page


1836: Goliad Massacre

From Bensonwiki

On the evening of March 26, 1836, Colonel Portilla, who was in charge of the Mexican force at Goliad received orders from General Santa Anna regarding the prisoners being held there. Santa Anna’s orders instructed Portilla to kill every prisoner that had been taken by force 1. According to The Christian Intelligencer and Eastern Chronicle, Texans had blown up the fort at Goliad on March 23 2. However, that same night, Portilla received word from General Urrea ordering him to take good care of the prisoners and keep them working 3. After debating whose orders to follow, Portilla, decided early on the morning of March 27 to follow those of Santa Anna, who was of superior rank. From Goliad, Portilla divided the prisoners into three separate groups, telling them that they were going to march to Matamoros. During the journey, the prisoners were stopped and executed. While some were spared (such as physicians) and some managed to escape, almost 350 prisoners were shot and killed 4. This brutal massacre coupled with the dramatic defeat at the Alamo served to strengthen the resolve of the Texans 5.

Sources

1 Gambrell, Herbert P. and Lewis W. Newton, A Social and Political History of Texas, (Dallas, TX: Turner Company, 1935), 170.

2 "Latest News From Texas," The Christian Intelligencer and Eastern Chronicle, 29 April 1836, 59, APS Online.

3 Gambrell, Herbert P. and Lewis W. Newton, A Social and Political History of Texas, (Dallas, TX: Turner Company, 1935), 170.

4 Campbell, Randolph C. Gone to Texas: a History of the Lone Star State, (NY: Oxford University Press, 2003), 152.

5 Winders, Richard Bruce. Crisis in the Southwest: The United States, Mexico, and the Struggle over Texas, (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources Inc., 2002), 25.


Related Events

1835: The Texas Revolution Begins

1836: Texan destruction of Goliad fort


Return to SHDB main page


1836: Battle of San Jacinto

From Bensonwiki

At 4 p.m. during the afternoon of April 21, 1836, as the unexpecting Mexican soldiers rested on the banks of the San Jacinto River (near present day Houston), Texan troops under the command of Sam Houston commenced their attack. Santa Anna, who was in the midst of his siesta was caught unprepared, and after a brief and feeble attempt to repel the attack, the Mexican troops fled. For the Texans, this was a revenge-fueled attack, evidenced by their shouting “Remember the Alamo; remember Goliad!” [1]. The Texans got their revenge, killing 630 Mexicans and capturing 730 others while only losing 9 of their own number [2]. In the words of a correspondent of the New Orleans Bee who witnessed the battle, “the sight was horrible…the ground was strewed with dead men, dead horses, guns, bayonets, swords, drums, trumpets; some shattered and broken books, papers, shoes, sandals, caps, the chaos of a routed army” [3]. The battle lasted until the end of the day, when Colonel Almonte offered the official surrender of his troops to the Texans [4]. The battle is seen by many as the decisive point where the Texans won their independence, however, the struggle continued for another decade [5].

Sources

[1] Herbert P. Gambrell and Lewis W. Newton, A Social and Political History of Texas, (Dallas, TX: Turner Company, 1935), 185.

[2] Richard Bruce Winders, Crisis in the Southwest: The United States, Mexico, and the Struggle over Texas, (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources Inc, 2002), 27.

[3] "The Battle and the Captives," Atkinson's Saturday Evening Post, XV, no. 777, 18 June 1836, 0_002, APS Online.

[4] Herbert P. Gambrell and Lewis W. Newton, A Social and Political History of Texas, (Dallas, TX: Turner Company, 1935), 185.

[5] Richard Bruce Winders, Crisis in the Southwest: The United States, Mexico, and the Struggle over Texas, (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources Inc, 2002), 28.


Related Events

1835: The Texas Revolution Begins

1836: Battle of the Alamo

1836: Goliad Massacre


Return to SHDB main page


1837: Panic of 1837

From Bensonwiki

On May 10, 1837, banks in New York suspended the redemption of bank notes for specie (gold and silver), and other banks around the nation quickly followed suit. This suspension led to an immediate economic crisis, and a more lasting political upheaval.[1] This crisis was brought on by a number of preceding events, including the destruction of the United States National Bank and the subsequent transfer of deposits to numerous smaller banks, many of which responded to this windfall by overextending credit on shaky investments.[2] Many banks actually went into debt by financing too many internal improvement projects, especially in the Eastern and Southern states. This problem was compounded by the passage of the specie circular in 1836, which restricted land purchases to specie payments only. This resulted in a great deal of specie moving west across the country, causing many Eastern banks to become under-funded and hastening their collapse.[3] The emergence of a large trade deficit in the years leading up to the panic only served to worsen the problem.[4]

In the South, the impacts were felt the worst in the western cotton belt states. Internal improvement and industrialization projects were quickly scrapped, leaving their investors in debt. Cotton prices fell sharply, and many areas began to diversify agriculturally.[5] Politically, the innate problems resulting from entrusting the national treasury to independently owned and operated banks showed the need for the creation of an Independent Treasury, proposed by President Van Buren in September 1837. However, a majority of the American public blamed the Democratic policies of Andrew Jackson for the economic collapse, and as a result the Whigs were able to capture control of the Presidency in the 1840 elections.[6]

Related Events:

Specie Circular, 1836 1837: Inauguration of Martin Van Buren 1840: Presidential Election of 1840

Sources:

[1]Wilson, Major L. The Presidency of Martin Van Buren Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1984. p.43 [2]McGrane, Reginald Charles. The Panic of 1837. New York: Russell & Russell, 1965. p.24-25 [3]Ibid., 92. [4]Wilson, 44. [5]McGrane, 112-114 [6]Ibid., 175.

Return to the SHDB

Return to 1830-1839 Events


1837: Michigan gains statehood

From Bensonwiki

Michigan joined the union as a free state in January 1837, shortly following the admission of the slave state of Arkansas.[1] Admitted together to retain a semblance of representative balance in the Senate between slaveholding and free states, these were the first states admitted under the provisions of the Missouri Compromise of 1820.[2] Because the groundwork for admitting new states had already been agreed upon, Michigan’s admission was one of the few antebellum entries that failed to evoke sectionally-based controversy.[3]

The primary controversies regarding Michigan’s entry were therefore boundary disputes with Illinois and Constitutional naturalization inconsistencies.[4] Michigan was clearly located above the 36 30 and had little utility for slavery to begin with; the simultaneous admission of Arkansas only helped to further diminish sectional conflict. This lack of hostility is significant considering the sectional conflicts prevalent throughout this time, especially between slaveholders and abolitionist groups, many of which were already under formation in Michigan prior to its entry into the union.[5]

Related Events:

1836: Arkansas Gains Statehood

1836: Introduction of the Gag Rule

Sources:

[1]”Michigan—Official.” ‘’Niles Weekly Register.’’ October 15 1836 p. 101 (Proquest->APS Online) [2]”Michigan and Arkansas.” ‘’The New Yorker.’’ July 23 1836 p. 281 (Proquest->APS Online) [3]”Debate on the Admission of Michigan.”(transcript) ‘’Niles Weekly Register.’’ January 7 1837 p. 298 (Proquest->APS Online) [4]”Michigan and Arkansas” 281. [5]”Progress of Abolition.” ‘’Liberator.’’ December 10 1836 p. 198. (Proquest->APS Online)

Return to SHDB

Return to 1830-1839 Events


1837: Inauguration of Martin Van Buren

From Bensonwiki

Martin Van Buren himself described his presidency as the "third term of the Jackson administration." [1] Indeed, his success in the election of 1836 was in large part due to Andrew Jackson selecting him as the "heir apparent" to the Democratic party, having served as Jackson’s second term Vice President. Although groomed in his predecessor’s image, Van Buren’s views often varied drastically from Jackson’s.[2] However, because he remained in solidarity with the president on the Bank issue and Nullification crisis, Jackson rewarded his loyalty by selecting Van Buren as his successor.[3]

As President, Van Buren tried to remain inoffensive to all, toeing the line between upholding his own values and those of Jackson and the Democrats. In order to become elected, Van Buren publicly proclaimed little about his planned policies, even convincing Andrew Jackson not to act on the Texas situation until after the election was over. He mostly avoided confrontation on the slavery issue, and rarely fought with Congress, unlike his predecessor.[4] In fact, his inoffensiveness ultimately proved to be offensive, as many on both sides of the slavery issue were dissatisfied by his unwillingness to address the issue. While those in the North were upset that he would take no steps to curtail slavery or its expansion, those in the South were displeased in his acceptance of Northern abolitionism.[5] His biggest crisis while in office was certainly the economic depression resulting from the Panic of 1837, which he was both unable and unwilling to alleviate. His biggest reaction, the introduction of bill that would create an Independent sub-Treasury system, was met with much controversy in Congress.[6] It was his unwillingness to act that in part led to the Whig victory in the Election of 1840.

Related Events:

1837: Panic of 1837 1840: Election of 1840

Sources:

[1]Curtis, James C. “In the Shadow of Old Hickory: The Political Travail of Martin Van Buren.” Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 1, No. 3 (JSTOR), p. 249. [2]Ibid., 253. [3]Ibid., 255. [4]Ibid., 257. [5]"Mr Van Buren's Pledge", Philanthropist, Apr 21 1837, Page 02 (Proquest, APS Online) [6]Wilson, Major L. The Presidency of Martin Van Buren Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1984. p.43

Return to SHDB

Return to 1830-1839 Events


1837: Abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy is murdered by angry mob

From Bensonwiki

Elijah Lovejoy was a prominent Presbyterian minister, abolitionist, and journalist from Alton, Illinois. As an abolitionist editor for the ‘’Alton Observer,’’ Rev. Lovejoy sent out numerous religiously-rooted attacks on the institution of slavery, going so far as to claim it would provoke God’s wrath against it’s perpetrators.[1] Lovejoy also spoke out against the poor treatment of slaves, and the unchristian educations many were receiving.[2] By 1837, the political turmoil between abolitionists and the supporters of slavery was becoming heated. While President Van Buren hoped to mostly sidestep the issue, abolitionists were attempting to spread anti-slavery propaganda, angering Southern slave owners enough to pass statewide “gag rules” preventing the distribution of antislavery propaganda in 1836.[3] One of the most heated points of contention was the issue of banning slavery in the District of Columbia, for which Rev. Lovejoy distributed petitions throughout Alton.[4]

Despite the fact that Illinois was a free state, many of Lovejoy’s radical articles angered the local populace. On the night of November 7, 1837, a mob of angry anti-abolitionists gathered to destroy Rev. Lovejoy’s printing press to silence his propaganda campaign. Although Lovejoy was murdered in the resulting standoff, his death made him into a martyr for the abolitionist cause. Following his death, the abolitionist movement underwent a drastic transformation.[5] The combined experiences of mob violence and gag rules convinced them that public propaganda was an ineffective method of persuasion, and so the movement focused instead on political activism. His brother, Owen Lovejoy, a prominent abolitionist senator who devoted his career to Elijah’s memory, was one embodiment of this new form of abolitionism.[6]

Related Events:

1836: Introduction of the Gag Rule

Sources:

[1]Dillon, Merton L. "The Failure of the American Abolitionists." The Journal of Southern History. Vol. 25, No. 2 (May 1959) p.163 (JSTOR): references a quoted speech by Elijah Lovejoy [2]Lovejoy, Elijah. "Observer and Christian Mirror." Philanthropist, May 5, 1837 p. 0_2. (Proquest->APS Online) [3]Dillon 168. [4]Lovejoy, Owen. His Brother's Blood: Speeches and Writings, 1838-1864. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2004. p. 391. [5]Dillon 174. [6]Lovejoy, Owen p. xix

Return to SHDB

Return to 1830-1839 Events


1837: United States recognizes Texas independence

From Bensonwiki

The success of the Texas Revolution left the United States in an awkward political situation. Many of those that fought against Mexican rule had been American emigrants with American ideals who wished for Texas to be annexed by the United States.[1] While the United States and Andrew Jackson in particular had voiced claims on the Texan territory, interfering in the Revolution would antagonize Mexico as well as interfere with stated American foreign policy.[2] By late 1836, while Santa Anna had surrendered at the Battle of San Jacinto, Mexico City was refusing to recognize the treaty, and it appeared that the war might not be entirely over.[3] Given United States’ regional claims to the territory as well as Texan eagerness for annexation, any hasty recognition of Texan Independence could provoke a war with Mexico.

There were domestic reasons for the United States’ hesitation as well. The Texas Constitution allowed for both slavery and the slave trade, which would provide for partisan and sectional division concerning Texas’ annexation.[4] As November 1836 was a Presidential election year, Andrew Jackson was careful not to take a strong stance either way for fear of hurting Martin Van Buren’s chances of reelection.[5] Although both houses of Congress passed resolutions supporting the recognition of Texas, Jackson stalled until March 3, his last day in office, before acceding. Texas would not be annexed, however, until 1845.[6]

Related Events:

1837: Inauguration of Martin Van Buren 1836: Battle of San Jacinto

Sources:

[1]Reichstein, Andreas V. Rise of the Lone Star. College Station: Texas A&M Press, 1989. p. 172. [2]"United States Senate." Liberator Jan. 2 1837 p. 2. (Proquest->APS Online) [3]Reichstein 170. [4]"Texas and the Slave Question." Liberator Jan. 2 1837 p. 2. (Proquest->APS Online) [5]Reichstein 176. [6]Ibid. 177.

Return to SHDB Return to 1830-1839 Events


1839: Amistad Revolt

From Bensonwiki

On June 28, 1839, the Spanish schooner, the Amistad, set sail from Havana, Cuba destined for Puerto Príncipe, Cuba with 53 Mendian “slaves” from Africa. Others on board included a Spanish captain, a cook and cabin boy, the two “African slave” owners—Don José Ruiz and Don Pedro Montes—along with two other Spanish crewmembers. [1] On the fifth day of the passage, the Africans, led by Joseph Cinque, and the 48 African men, revolted against the crew and Spaniards, resulting in the deaths of the captain and cook. The two Spanish owners survived and were forced to steer the schooner back to Africa. Throughout the days, Montes sailed toward the east, but at night, he attempted to head north and west, following the stars. It took the Amistad two months to navigate their way up the American coastline. Finally, on the morning of August 26th, the Amistad anchored off of Montauk Point, Long Island. Soon after, Lieutenant Commander Thomas Gedney took control of the schooner and arrested the Africans, taking them into New London, Connecticut’s port where they would be tried in a local court. [2] The Amistad case allowed anti-slavery politicians to bring the issue of abolition to the American forefront; it was “heaven-sent to Northern abolitionists who were interested in having moral rectitude influence legal justice.” [3] Eventually this case made it to the Supreme Court and a decision was made on March 9, 1841 claiming that the Africans were indeed free men, not chattle nor fugitives.



Related Events: 1817-Britain/Spain slavetrade treaty; 1841- Amistad decision



Footnotes: [1] Gordon E. Finnie, "The Amistad Affair," The Journal of Southern History, 59 (August 1971), 471-472. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28197108%2937%3A3%3C471%3ATAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K , Accessed 4 November 2006] [2] Ibid., 471-472. [3] Iyunolou Folayan Osagie, The Amistad Revolt: Memory, Slavery, and the Politics of Identity in the United States and Sierra Leone, (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2000); 8




Sources: [1] Gordon E. Finnie, "The Amistad Affair," The Journal of Southern History, 59 (August 1971), 471-472. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28197108%2937%3A3%3C471%3ATAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K , Accessed 4 November 2006] [2] New York, The New York Evangelist (1830-1902), 7 September 1839. [3] Howard Jones, Mutiny on the Amistad: the Saga of A Slave Revolt and Its Impact on American Abolition, Law, and Diplomacy, (New York: Oxford University Press,1987); 3-62 [4] William A. Owens, Black Mutiny-The Revolt on the Schooner Amistad, (Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press, 1953) [5] Iyunolou Folayan Osagie, The Amistad Revolt: Memory, Slavery, and the Politics of Identity in the United States and Sierra Leone, (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2000 xi-52


1839: Virginia Military Institute founded

From Bensonwiki

On November 11, 1839, the Virginia Military Institute was founded at the state arsenal in Lexington, Virgnia. The public arsenal was converted into a state owned military academy of engineering and science for young men. Francis H. Smith, a graduate of West Point, was given the position of superintendent of the Virginia Military Institute, serving there for fifty years. Smith believed in the concept of citizen soldier claiming that “it was important to have young men who as citizen soldiers could rally to the Commonwealth’s defense in time of peril.” [1] Even though the concept of citizen soldier played a large role in the ideology of the institute, the United States Military Academy also had an enormous influence as well. In the earlier days of its establishment, most all of the professors had attended the USMA. [2] Even at the very beginning of the schools’ foundation, promises were made to “unite the strength” [3] of the Virginia Military Institute and Washington College by engaging and participating in one another’s programs and classes. In the present day, the Virginia Military Institute and Washington and Lee University conveniently maintain their close ties, since they are located across the street from one another. Yet, the Virginia Military Institute has made quite a name for itself; it is well known as the nation’s oldest public military school and is revered for its respected and admirable officers and citizen soldiers. [4]



Related Events: 1861-1865: Civil War


Footnotes: [1] quoted from John M. Brooke, Jr., Naval Scientist and Educator, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1980), 293-295; New York, New York, The New - Yorker (1836-1841), 29 June 1839 (American Periodical Series Online) [2] Ibid., 293-295 [3] quoted from Washington, D.C., Army and Navy Chronicle (1835-18420, 20 June 1839 (American Periodical Series Online) [4] Ibid., 396


1839: Liberty Party formed

From Bensonwiki

On November 13, 1839, an antislavery convention met in Warsaw, New York to form an independent abolition party. At the meeting, James Birney was nominated as Presidential candidate and Francis LeMoyne, Vice President. Both Birney and LeMoyne declined the nominations, but at the 1840 convention in Albany, Birney accepted his nomination as president and offered a new Vice Presidential nomination to Thomas Morris. [1] The Liberty Party was officially formed at this convention even though its roots go back to the 1839 Warsaw convention. The Liberty Party was an anti-Garrison abolition party that had one platform—the immediate abolition of slavery. [2] It was unique because it was not able to relate to North or the South since they neither approved of the South’s slavery system nor the North’s modern society. (Forlorn Hope of Freedom-p. xiii) Therefore, only a small majority of Liberty voters in the ‘40’s for the Whigs and Democrats gained votes in elections. Yet, Salmon P. Chase, a Liberty member, began to grow discontented with the party’s strict religious and one-minded persepective on the issue of slavery. In 1848, just before the Presidential election, the Liberty party fell and soon after it merged with the Free Soil party thus leading to the formation of the Republican party. Even though the Free Soil party members were not advocates of immediate abolition, the Liberty party would not reach its goals in politics if it remained prisoner to staunchly one platform religious beliefs. It’s merging with the Free Soil party allowed Liberty members to still support abolition while broadening their appeal to potential voters. [3]



Related Events: 1840: Presidential Election of 1840; 1841: Albany convention



Footnotes: [1] Vernon L. Volpe, Forlorn Hope of Freedom-The Liberty Party in the Old Northwest, 1838-1848, (Kent: Kent State University Press, 1990)xi-xxii [2] Gerald Sorin, Abolitionism-A New Perspective, (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972), 80 [3] Ibid., 88-94



Sources: [1] Ibid., Volpe Forlorn Hope xi-55 [2] Ibid., Sorin, "Abolitionism," 56-98 [3] Julian P. Bretz, "The Economic Background of the Liberty Party," The American Historical Review, 34, (January 1929), 250-264. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28192901%2934%3A2%3C250%3ATEBOTL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4, Accessed 6 November 2006] [4] Boston, Massachusetts, Christian Reflector, 26 March 1841 (American Periodical Series Online)


1839: Roots of baseball

From Bensonwiki

It was a commonly known fact throughout most of the nineteenth century that in 1839 a man by the name of Abner Doubleday created the game of baseball in Cooperstown, New York. Yet in 1860, Henry Chadwick, an Englishman, claimed baseball got its origins from a game called “rounders” or town ball, and that it originated in Britain even though many people argued that the idea of baseball was first formed in Cooperstown, New York. Previously a believer in Chadwick’s theory, in 1889, a man by the name of Albert G. Spalding, a wealthy sporting goods owner, championed the struggle to identify baseball as of American origin. He led a commission that was begun in 1904 to discover baseball’s origins, even going so far as asking for information in newspapers. Abner Graves sent a letter to Spalding explaining that he was with Doubleday when he invented the game of baseball in Cooperstown, New York in 1839. Spalding, eager to end the ongoing debate, accepted Graves’ testimony and in 1907, the Mills Commission claimed that baseball originated from Doubleday. Although there has been much controversy since, and many baseball historians have claimed that baseball was seen in earlier forms of croquet or even Medieval ball games, most affirm the fact that Cooperstown, New York is the rightful place of The National Baseball Hall of Fame. Baseball has affectionately become known as America’s “national pastime.” [1] for it appeals to any American citizen: “it is gregarious in its nature and delights in crowds.” [2]



Related Events: 1907-Mills Commission



Footnotes: [1] quoted an actual quote within: Paul J. Zingg, "Diamond in the Rough: Baseball and the Study of American Sports History," The History Teacher, 19, (May 1986), 385-403. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2745%28198605%2919%3A3%3C385%3ADITRBA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A , Accessed 13 November 2006] [2] William R. Hooper, "Our National Pastime," Appletons' Journal, 5 (February 1871), 225-226. [Making of America: http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moajrnl;g=moagrp;xc=1;q1=our%20national%20game;rgn=full%20text;view=image;cc=moajrnl;seq=0229;idno=acw8433.1-05.100;node=acw8433.1-05.100%3A7, Accessed 13 November 2006]



Sources: [1] "Diamond in the Rough: Baseball and the Study of American Sports History," The History Teacher, 19, (May 1986), 385-403. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2745%28198605%2919%3A3%3C385%3ADITRBA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A , Accessed 13 November 2006] [2] William R. Hooper, "Our National Pastime," Appletons' Journal, 5 (February 1871), 225-226. [Making of America: http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moajrnl;g=moagrp;xc=1;q1=our%20national%20game;rgn=full%20text;view=image;cc=moajrnl;seq=0229;idno=acw8433.1-05.100;node=acw8433.1-05.100%3A7, Accessed 13 November 2006] [3] David Quentin Voight, American Baseball, University Park : Pennsylvania State University Press, 1983) [4]David Block; Baseball Before We Knew It : a search for the roots of the game, (Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press, 2005)


1839: Mississippi Married Women's first Property Law

From Bensonwiki

In 1839, a state law was passed giving Mississippi women the right to control their own property. Previously, "under the nineteenth-century common law,a married woman was bound by the rules of coverture, which vested her legal rights to her husband." [1] By giving women in Mississippi the right to control their own property, it would allow for women to be more secure in case they were were widowed by the deaths of their husbands. Of course, the process of women gaining fair property rights was not instantaneous--in 1830, women got control of their separate estates, in the '60's and '70's, "laws granted married women the right to keep their earnings" [2], and finally further legislation allowed them to work in a business as a independent woman. Yet, even though women's property laws were passed,it didn't directly change the status of women in society. [3] Even though this law may seem insignificant, it actually created a huge precedent for the women's property laws under the state. Women during this time period were largely controlled by their husbands--they made all of the decisions of the home and women did not have much of a voice. Soon afterward, other states like Michigan, Maine, Texas, Louisiana, Maryland, and Tennessee debated on whether or not to pass property laws as well. [4] It's interesting that of all the places in the United States, Mississippi was the first state to pass property laws. Even though the state did feel strongly about the rights of women to own their own property, other issues, such as slavery, remained untouched. This law was one of the earliest advances in the women's movement for it gave women a defined social status, and the right to control property which ultimately led to their independence.



Related Events: Abolition and Women's rights movement


Footnotes: [1] B. Zorina Khan, "Married Women's Property Laws and Female Commercial Activity: Evidence from United States Patent Records, 1790-1895," The Journal of Economic History, 56, (June 1996), 356-388. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0507%28199606%2956%3A2%3C356%3AMWPLAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z, Accessed 13 November 2006] [2] Ibid., 356-388. [3] Ibid., 356-388.; Mississippi History Now, "Betsy Love and the Mississippi Married Women's Property Act of 1839," <http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/feature67/Betsy_Love_Property%20Act.htm&gt; [accessed 16 November 2006] [4] Khan, "Married Women's Property," 356-368


1840: Chartering of Auburn University

From Bensonwiki

Description

Auburn University was first chartered as the East Alabama Male College in February of 1856 with an affiliation to the Slaton Male Academy preparatory school and the Methodist Episcopal Church of Auburn, Alabama. The college opened its doors to students on October 1, 1859 as a private liberal arts college. During the Civil War, the college closed to serve as a military hospital, while the preparatory school remained open. The school had high aspirations to further the education offered to Alabamians, but it lacked the funds to continue its operations. In December 1871, the Methodist church decided to donate the college to the state of Alabama. the legislature in Alabama was searching for a site for the new land-grant university under the Morill Act of 1862 which provided for a state school for each senator and representative specializing in agriculture, engineering and military training. The donation caused the state to favor Auburn as the site. The state legislature passed a bill on February 24, 1872 officially making the college the state land-grant university. It soon reopened as the Agricultural and Mechanical Institute of Alabama. It was later renamed the Alabama Polytechnic Institute before reaching its current name of Auburn University, named after the town in which it resides. While the school was chartered as a male college, it became coeducational in 1892, making it Alabama’s oldest coeducational school. Today, the university is the largest university in Alabama with an estimated student body of 23,000 students. [1] [2]


Sources

[1] http://diglib.auburn.edu/auburnhistory/oldsouth.htm; [2] http://www.ocm.auburn.edu/welcome/aboutauburn.html; Klein, Arthur J. “Survey of Land-Grant Colleges.” The Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 2, No. 4, (Apr, 1931), pp. 169-176.

Related events

1862: Morill Act


1840: Presidential Election of 1840

From Bensonwiki

Description

Prior to the election of 1840, the Whigs and Democrats gathered at their prospective conventions to nominate a candidate for the president of the United States. The Democrats chose to continue their support for the incumbent president, Martin Van Buren; however, the party was divided over this decision and did not fully support him. [1] His presidency had been plagued by an economic depression, the financial panic of 1837. The panic resulted in the foreclosure of many farms and a decrease in the prices of agricultural goods. This depression affected thousands of American farmers who would look for new leadership. [2] Also Van Buren was a quiet man and a lifetime politician. His opponent, on the other hand, the Whig’s candidate, William Henry Harrison, was a famous general from the War of 1812 and an esteemed Indian fighter. He ran under the “Log Cabin and Hard Cider” campaign which compared him the beloved Ex-president Andrew Jackson and gave him the “common man” image that so appealed to Americans of the day. The American people turned out to vote in record numbers, over 80%, to elect William Henry Harrison as President of the United States. The outcome of the election resulted from the “critical voter realignments”[3] that occurred between 1836 and 1840 due to the hard times of the depression and the failure of the Democratic party to appeal to the common man.[4]


Sources

[1]“The Late Election.” The United States Magazine and Democratic Review. Vol. 8, No. 35 & 36 (Nov/Dec, 1840), pp. 390 (385-398).; [2]Ibid 393; [3] Formisano, Ronald P. “The New Political History and the Election of 1840.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History. Vol. 23, No. 4 (Spring, 1993), pp. 665 (661-682). [JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-1953%28199321%2923%3A4%3C661%3ATNPHAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1 Accessed November 2006] [4] Ibid 670; “The History and Moral Relations of Political Economy.” The United States Magazine and Democratic Review. Vol. 8, No. 34 (Oct, 1840), pp. 289-310.; Carey, Charles W. “Presidency.” The Encyclopedia of the United States in the 19th Century. Vol. 2, Ed. Paul Finkelman. New York: Charles Schribner’s sons, 2001. pp. 559-561.

Related Events

1812: War of 1812, 1837: Panic of 1837, 1840: Independent Treasury Reform


1840: Independent Treasury Reform

From Bensonwiki

Description

The banking system in America faced a great deal of controversy in the nineteenth century. In 1836, Andrew Jackson vetoed the second charter of the National Bank of the United States because he saw it as a monopoly that benefited the already wealthy aristocracy and put too much power in their hands. This action led to the Panic of 1837, an economic depression that resulted in the foreclosure of many American farms and the drop in agricultural prices. The government saw the need for a reform to stabilize the national currency. President Martin Van Buren worked through the entirety of his term in office pushing for the Independent Treasury Reform, heavily supported by the Democratic Party. The Democrats believed that Congress’ passing of this bill in 1840 was the “leading epoch of our history” [1] and called it a “Second Declaration of Independence.”[2] The bill provided for a national banking system that did not place control of the system in the hands of the “financial elite.”[3] The Democrats argued that the problem in American at the time was the “excessive eagerness in the pursuit of rapid gain [of wealth]”[4] and found that placing control of the new system in new hands would regulate the currency and provide much needed stabilization of the American economy to pull them out of an economic depression. This proved to be the highlight of Van Buren’s presidency but was not enough to carry him to victory through the 1840 election. [5]


Sources

[1] “The Independent Treasury Reform.” The United States Magazine and Democratic Review. Vol. 8, No. 32 (Aug, 1840), pp. 97 (97-108).; [2] Ibid 97 [3] Carey, Charles W. “Presidency.” The Encyclopedia of the United States in the 19th Century. Vol. 2, Ed. Paul Finkelman. New York: Charles Schribner’s sons, 2001. pp. 560 (559-561). [4] Ibid 105 [5] Ibid 559-561


Related events

National Bank, 1837: Panic of 1837, 1840: Presidential Election of 1840


1840: World Anti-slavery Convention

From Bensonwiki

Description

Englishman Joseph Sturge found the institution of slavery abhorrent and in 1837 began to devise a plan to end slavery altogether. In 1839, the New York Emancipator called for an international convention to discuss the abolition of slavery worldwide. Sturge immediately jumped on this idea and organized the “General Anti-Slavery Convention” to meet in London in June of 1884. He invited abolitionist parties and organizations from around the world, though primarily from Great Britain and the United States. Each organization invited selected delegates to attend the convention. The American invitees chose several women delegates to represent their organizations. Upon the commencement of the convention, the women were excluded from the meeting, causing quite a controversy. Some of the women attending, including Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, would soon begin a women’s suffrage campaign in the United States partially as a result of the unfair exclusion in London. [1] After the expulsion incident, the convention discussed free labor versus slave labor and also expressed sympathies for the slaves on board the Amistad and the Creolefacing trial in the United States. [2] The delegates discussed methods of abolition, putting special focus on the American slavery issue. The convention further pressed the British perception of the injustice of slavery onto the Americans and gave the abolition movement more media attention. This convention was the first international organization to meet and discuss international issues and aid, an example that would be followed in the future. [3]


Sources

[1] Maynard, Douglas H. “The World’s Anti-Slavery Convention of 1840.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. Vol. 47, No. 3 (Dec, 1960), pp. 452 (452-471). [JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-391X%28196012%2947%3A3%3C452%3ATWACOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E Accessed November 2006]; [2] Van Broekhoven, Deborah. “Abolition and Antislavery.” The Encyclopedia of the United States in the 19th Century. Vol. 1, Ed. Paul Finkelman. New York: Charles Schribner’s sons, 2001. pp 4. [3] Maynard, Douglas H. “The World’s Anti-Slavery Convention of 1840.” 452.


Related Events

1833: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1833: British Emancipation, 1834: British Abolish Slavery, 1872: Susan B. Anthony votes 1841: Amistad Decision


1840: Ten Hour Work Day

From Bensonwiki

Description

On April 10, 1840, President Martin Van Buren issued an executive order regulating the length of the workday of federal employees to ten hours. The movement to shorten the workday began in the 1830s. In fact, a law was passed in 1836 that limited the hours of government office employees to eight to ten hours a day. The order for a ten hour workday, given by Van Buren, also only affected certain government employees; however, the exact extent of employees affected by the order is still in much debate today. [1] Some say the order applied only to navy yard employees, while others argue that the order was much more general and did not specifically name those to be affected. The exact wording is unknown because executive orders were not kept on file until 1905, when President Theodore Roosevelt called for all executive orders to be filed with the Department of State. It is known, however, that the ten hour rule included breaks and meal times and was not meant to induce a reduction of the wages of government employees. This order would lead to the implementation of similar laws in other sectors of the economy such as in women’s labor and child labor later in the nineteenth century. [2]


Sources

[1] Kelly, Matthew A. “Early Federal Regulation of Hours of Labor in the United States.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Vol. 3, No. 3, (Apr, 1950), pp. 364-365 (362-374).[JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0019-7939%28195004%293%3A3%3C362%3AEFROHO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I Accessed November 2006]; [2] Goldmark, Josephine. “The Illinois Ten Hour Decision.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York. Vol. 1, No. 1, The Economic Position of Women. (Oct, 1910), pp. 185-187. [JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1548-7237%28191010%291%3A1%3C185%3ATITD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O Accessed November 2006]


Related events

1840: Presidential Election of 1840


1841: Amistad Decision

From Bensonwiki

Description

On March 9, 1941 the Supreme Court, in the person of Mr Justice Story, ruled that the Africans aboard the slave ship Amistad were "legally free persons under the suppression of the African Slave Trade Act"1; In other words, the Africans were now declared free persons. The principal question in this case was whether the Africans were legal property of the Spanish, because of the treaty between the United States and Spain in 1785. This was however dismissed, on the grounds that "the negroes in question are not property, not slaves, but free men, under the laws of Spain and under the treaty between Great Britain and Spain."2This decision was considered to be a victory for the anti-slavery advocates and was widely publicized throughout the United States.3

The Negroes of the Amistad had already been declared free before justice Judson of the Conneticut district but President Martin van Buren, who was concerned about relations with Spain and his possible re-election, was advised to bring the case for the Supreme Court, which he did. There former President John Quincy Adams became the defendant of the Africans: by using his persuasive oratory skills he became victorious in defending the Africans case: they were now allowed to go back to their native land, Sierra Leone. After money was brought together to finance the journey to Africa in 1842, most of the negroes took the opportunity to go back, although some remained in the U.S.4

Related Events

1839: Spanish vessel Amistad arrives in the US 1840: US District Court for the Connecticut District ruled in favor of Africans of the Amistad 1840: World Anti-slavery Convention

Sources

1 Iyunolu Folayan Osagie, The Amistad Revolt,(Athens and London: University of Georgia Press, 2000), 3.

2 "The Amistad Captives Set Free," New York Observer and Chronicle 13 March 1841; in American Periodical Series Online, 1740-1900, [Accessed 11 November 2006]

3 Ibid.; "The Amistad Captives Set Free;" Osagie, The Amistad Revolt, 3-18; "Decision of the Amistad Case," The New-Yorker 13 March 1841; in American Periodical Series Online, 1740-1900, [Accessed 3 November 2006]

4Ibid.; Osagie, The Amistad Revolt, 3-18.


1841: Land Act of 1841

From Bensonwiki

Description

On September 4, 1841, federal legislation was enacted that permitted American settlers to claim up to 160 acres of public land from the government if they could prove that they had lived there for a certain period. Settlers then would have to buy that land from the U.S government at a minimum prize of $1.25 per acre, which was substantially less than ruled in the land Act of 1800, where the prize per acre was accounted for $2 and the minimum amount of land 320 acres, compared to 80 acres in the Land Act of 1820 and beyond. Furthermore, the Land Act of 1841, also called the Pre-Emption Act of 1841, allowed prospective preemption to take place: from now on people could now just jump on the land and violate land claims: these people were the so-called squatters.1 The Act was favored by States in the Western part because they wanted to encourage settlement there, not because it brought land speculation. However, it was opposed by the Eastern states since they feared a loss of labor and depopulation. Calhoun was typical example of this sentiment: he was not really in favor of this decision, although he thought that preemption was good since the eastern states would get an alliance with the mid-west and the economy would grow, but was against it because he also feared depopulation. Other senators, like Mr. Benton, denounced the distribution of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the several states as "unreasonable and corrupt." 2 Nevertheless, the Act passed and more people moved to the Western states.3

Related Events

1800: Land Act of 1800 1820: Land Act of 1820 1830: Pre-emption Act of 1830

Sources

1 Twenty-sixth Congress: Second session. The Pre-emption Bill. Oregon, New York Evangelist 16 January 1841; in American Periodical Series Online, 1740-1900, [Accessed 3 November 2006].

2 Twenty-sixth Congress: Second session. Prospective Pre-emption Bill. New York Evangelist 23 January 1841. in American Periodical Series Online, 1740-1900, [Accessed 3 November 2006].

3 Ibid.; "Twenty-sixth Congress: Second session. The Pre-emption Bill"; "Twenty-sixth Congress: Second session. Prospective Pre-emption Bill"


1841: Anti-Slavery Lecture Frederick Douglass

From Bensonwiki

Description

On August 11, 1841, Frederick Douglass delivered his first speech for the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Convention in Nantucket. Douglass, an escaped slave from Talbot County, Maryland and son of an unknown white man and black woman, was already delivering speeches before anti-slavery gatherings as early as 1839. He had been asked to speak in Nantucket by Mr William C. Coffin, a New Bedford abolitionist. At the Convention, Douglass apologized for his ignorance, reminding the audience that "slavery was a poor school for the human intellect and heart"1 and proceeded to tell something about his own experiences while being a slave.2

Afterwards, Frederick Douglass was described by many people as a born orator: he made the listeners hate slavery and spoke with great power: Garrison even said:"I think I never hated slavery so intensely as at that moment."3 Douglass however, found himself at first not adequate enough when William Lloyd Garrison asked him to keep on lecturing for the Anti-Slavery lecture. Nevertheless, he managed to persuade Douglass to make a trial and ever since he acted as a lecturing agent for the society giving hundreds of speeches, thereby lecturing people about the horror of slavery, which also contributed to the abolishment of slavery by President Lincoln. In 1845, he became well known for the publication of his autobiography The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, which sold more than 30.000 copies.4

Related Events

1833: American Anti-Slavery Society 1838: Frederick Douglass' Escape from Slavery 1845: Frederick Douglass Publishes his Autobiography

Sources

1Frederick Douglass, The Frederick Douglass Papers: Series two, Autobiographical Writings, John W. Blassingame ed., (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999), 4.

2Ibid., Frederick Douglass, The Frederick Douglass Papers, 3-13; William S. McFeely, Frederick Douglass, (New York: Norton and Company, 1991), 86-91.

3 David D. Chesebrough, Frederick Douglass: Oratory from Slavery, (Conneticut and London: Greenwood Press, 1998), 17.

4Ibid.; Chesebrough, Frederick Douglass: Oratory from Slavery, 17-18; Frederick Douglass, The Frederick Douglass Papers, 3-13.


1841: Opening Oregon Trail

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Oregon Trail, named after the fact it began as road to Oregon, became the primary route westwards from 1840 to 1869: by following the trail people could reach states like California, Utah and Nevada; over the years, thousands of people would use this road. Possibly the first significant group of people who went on the Oregon Trail gathered at Independence, Missouri and went westwards in May 1841; Before this, missionaries had already been sent to Oregon, but never a substantial party of people. The party that left Independence in 1841 consisted of 125 people (all white, a majority of them males) and 18 wagons and was under the leadership of Dr. White. In mid August they reached Fort Hall and arrived at Willamette Valley in October 1842, where they decided to settle. The first large group, over 100 people, mostly families, left in the spring of 1842. Both this group of people and the emigration group that left in 1843, were publicized in Fremont's report, which made the Oregon Trail more well known: by reading the reports, thousands of people became now convinced that the trip was "little else that a pleasure excursion, requiring scarcely as much preperation as a journey from St. Louis to Philadelphia thirty-five years ago."1 The emigration to the Pacific now really got underway and continued until 1869: over the years a huge flow of people would migrate and leave the midwest. However, the road lost it's value in 1869: the transcontinental railroad that was completed in that year proved to be much more efficient: travelling by train was much faster and less hazardous, which made the Oregon Trail superfluous.2

Related Events

1843: Pioneers set forth on Oregon Trail 1846: Oregon Treaty 1869: The First Transcontinental Railroad

Sources

1John David Unruh, The Plains Across: the Overland Emigrants and the trans-Mississippi West, 1840-60, (Urbana : University of Illinois Press, 1979), 99.

2John Mack Faragher, Women and Men on the Overland Trail, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001), 6-7.


1841: Death of President William Henry Harrison

From Bensonwiki

Description

On March 4, 1841, an inaugural parade of the president-elect William Henry Harrison, ninth president of the United States, took place. William Henry Harrison, a member of the Whig party, was already 68 years old when he was elected, which made him the oldest man ever to hold the presidency. (until the election of Ronald Raegan.) During his presidency, Mr. Harrison had many pressures and was constantly on the move, dropping by at departments and visiting outgoing democrats. One night he ignored the elements and was drenched to the bone. On March 27, his sickness was diagnosed as "bilious pleurisy, with symptoms of pneumonia and intestinal inflammation".1 On april 4, at almost noon, less than a month after his inauguration, he died. Upon his death, his last words were, probably meant for vice-president Tyler: "I wish you to understand the true prinicples of government. I wish them carried out. I ask nothing more." 2

After his death, Congress did not know what to do since they had no precedents to guide them: William Henry Harrison was namely the first President of the United States ever to die in office. However, vice president John Tyler took control claiming he was the person entitled to replace the president: he was now considered to be the acting president and took the oath prescribed by the Constitution for office. But Tyler was a state rights whig, different from Harrison: he abandoned the Whig agenda, thereby vetoeing the proposal for tariffs and a new bank, leaving himself without a party. 3

Related Events

1773: Birth of William Henry Harrison 1841: inauguration of William Henry Harrison 1841: Tyler becomes the 10th President of the United States

Sources

1 Norma Lois Peterson, The Presidencies of William Henry Harrison and John Tyler, (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1989), 31-41.

2 Ibid.; "National Affairs: Death of the President of the United States," Baltimore Niles' National Register 10 April 1841; in American Periodical Series Online, 1740-1900, [Accessed 3 November 2006]; Philip Weeks, Buckeye Presidents: Ohians in the White House, (Kent and London: Kent State University Press, 2003), 9-38.

3 Norma Lois Peterson, The Presidencies of William Henry Harrison and John Tyler, (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1989), 31-41.


1842:Webster-Ashburton Treaty

From Bensonwiki

Description

This treaty, signed August 9, 1842 addressed and settled the dispute over the Maine-New Brunswick border between the United States and Canada. This ended up giving the United States considerably more land than was agreed upon in the treaty of 1818 by moving the border a mile north of the 45th parallel. This created the shared use of the Great Lakes as well as reaffirmed the location of the border on the 49th parallel in the westward frontier, which had been defined within the treaty of 1818. The Webster-Ashburton Treaty also called for a final end to the slave trade on the high seas. The United States Secretary of State Daniel Webster and United Kingdom Privy Counselor, Alexander Baring, Lord Ashburton, signed the treaty. This Treaty also marked the end of the unofficial fighting of the Aroostook or Lumberjack’s War, which was a dispute over the border. Because of this treaty, which Webster was working on, he decided to not resign at the same time as the rest of President Tyler’s Cabinet during the Texas crisis. An unexpected benefit of this land gain by the United States was the iron ore that was mined there.

Related Events

1818:Treaty of 1818 1841:Creole Affair

Sources

Webster- Ashburton treaty found at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/britain/br-1842.htm


1842: anesthesia

From Bensonwiki

Description

Anesthesia is the product used to anesthetize or an induced loss of sensitivity so as not to experience pain associated with a medical procedure. The tradition of anesthesia began in ancient times with opium and various wines but the modern era of anesthesia began in 1772 when nitrous oxide was discovered and was extended in 1800 when the inhalation of ether was found to have a similar affect to nitrous oxide in allowing the patient to be desensitized. These gases were first used in surgery in 1842. There were two instances of the use of anesthesia in a surgical sense in 1842. William E. Clarke performed an extraction of a tooth aided by the use of ether in January. In March Dr. Crawford Williamson Long used anesthesia during an operation for the first time when it was given to a boy before a cyst was excised from his neck. Using anesthesia became popular during the Civil War since it allowed battlefield surgeons to perfect their techniques when they had ether available.

Related Events

1772 nitrous oxide discovered

Sources

The Unusual History of Ether http://www.anesthesia-nursing.com/ether.html

Conquering surgical pain: Four men stake their claim http://neurosurgery.mgh.harvard.edu/History/ether3.htm


1842:Treaty of Nanking

From Bensonwiki

Description

This treaty, signed August 29th 1842, ended the First Opium War between the British Empire and the Emperor of China. It was signed aboard the HMS Cornwallis at the city of Nanjing. The terms of this treaty were very favorable to the British. The treaty ceded Hong Kong to the British as well as allowed the British access to the ports of Canton, Amoy, Foochow, Ningpo and Shanghai, which marked a change in the Chinese idea of foreigners. These ports had not been previously open to any foreign trading and now they are exclusively open to the British. The British also received 21 million ounces of silver in compensation for the war, fixed tariffs, extraterritoriality for British citizens on Chinese soil and gave the British most favored nation status. This treaty did not however address the opium trade, which had been the reason that the war had started in the first place. This was very profitable to the British Empire who had been importing opium to china through the east India tea company.

Related Events

1834:First Opium War

Sources

Treaty of Nanking found at http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/documents/nanjing.htm


1842:Armed Occupation Act

From Bensonwiki

Description

The purpose of this act was to encourage settlers to penetrate the Indian zones of the Florida territory with the assistance of the federal government. This Act was finally passed in August 1842 after two years of deliberation because of the hostility of the Seminole inhabitants. Thomas Hart Benton was the driving force behind this bill, and was the reason this act made it into law. The land would be granted as long as the applicant obtained a permit from the register and the receiver in one of the local land offices, resided on the land for 5 years, built a house and cultivated at least five acres of land and the settlement must take place within one year of the grant. This land was available to any person who was the head of a household, or over 18 years of age, able to bear arms and would make settlement within the part of Florida described within this act. These settlers were armed with the equipment of soldiers and enough seeds to allow them to begin cultivating a small farm. This act was very beneficial to Eastern Florida where the Indians were the most prevalent.

Related Events



Sources

Sidney Walter Martin,"The Public Domain in Territorial Florida," The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 10, No. 2. (May, 1944), pp. 174-187.


1842: Dorr Rebellion

From Bensonwiki

Description

On May 19, 1842 Thomas Dorr led a raid on an arsenal in Providence, RI to oppose the original Rhode Island charter, which did not include broad voting rights. This came after Dorr and his supporters drafted their own state constitution at the Peoples Convention. This rebellion was supported by most of the state militia since they were Irishmen who were enfranchised by this referendum. The Dorrites were defeated at the arsenal and retreated to Chepachet in an attempt to reconvene the Peoples Convention. Opposition forces known as the Charterites were sent to defend a village and cut of the Dorrite retreat but a Dorrite attack never came. The Dorr Rebellion fell apart after this but the Governor still offered a reward for Thomas Dorr’s arrest. The Rhode Island General Assembly was called into session in September and put together a new constitution, which was voted on by the old limited electorate. This new constitution extended suffrage to any free white man who could pay $1 as a poll tax.

Related Events


Sources

George M. Dennison, "The Dorr War: Republicanism on Trial, 1831-1861," The American Historical Review, Vol. 81, No. 5. (Dec., 1976), pp. 1241-1242.[Jstor: http://www.jstor.org/view/00028762/di951398/95p0324f/0,Accessed 1 November 2006]

Marvin E. Gettleman, "The Dorr Rebellion: A Study in American Radicalism, 1833-1849" The Journal of American History, Vol. 60, No. 4. (Mar., 1974), p. 1114. [jstor: http://www.jstor.org/view/00218723/di952375/95p0043p/0 Accessed 1 November 2006]


1842:Commonwealth vs. Hunt

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Boston Boot makers Journeyman Society was established in 1835. This organization had previously gone on strike in order to raise the wage for boot makers. This group was local to the Boston area and its members made a specific sort of high-grade boot. John Hunt, Patrick Hayes, Daniel O’Neal, Sapplier Woods, Michael O’Conner and Edward Farrington were charged by the state of Massachusetts with intending to form themselves into an unlawful club and to make unlawful by-laws, and unlawfully to extort money. They conspired together and agreed that none of them would work for any master or person, in their art, as boot makers who should employ any other person who was not a member of their club. The state stated that this was an unlawful conspiracy as this had been labeled in many previous court cases. This court case establishes strikes and unions as legal within the United States. This case may have originated in Boston but it affected the growth of labor unions throughout the north, which translates into the comparison between free labor and slavery for the nation.

Related Events

1835: Boston Bootmakers Journeyman Society

Sources

Recent American Decisions, Law Reporter (1838-1848); Dec 1840,3,8; APS Online pg. 290

Walter Nelles, "Commonwealth v. Hunt," Columbia Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 7. (Nov., 1932), pp. 1128-1169.[jstor:http://www.jstor.org/view/00101958/ap030254/03a00020/0?currentResult=00101958%2bap030254%2b03a00020%2b0%2cFFD77DDFDF07&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26Query%3DWalter%2BNelles%2Bcommonwealth%2Bv%2Bhunt Accessed October 30 2006]


1843: $30,000 for Morse's Telegraph

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description

On March 3rd of 1843, the Senate approved the appropriations bill request of thirty thousand dollars to construct a telegraph line stretching from Washington D.C. up to Baltimore, Maryland along the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, a distance of forty-four miles. The project would be supervised and led by Samuel Morse. “ The object of this arrangement is to prove..... that the length of the line of communication presents no obstacle whatever to the instant transmission of intelligence between the two extremes either by day or night.” 1 The bill barely passed the House on February 21st with a vote of 89 to 83. The bill received virtually no support from the South, composed of mainly Democrats, where as it had garnered most of its support from Northern Whigs who supported the federal government’s efforts for internal development. The telegraph line would be the first project of electrical engineering in the United States. The “Lightning Line” 2 would revolutionize communication in the 19th century. Where it once took days to deliver a message or news, it now conceivably would take a “blink of the eye”. “In its more practical effects, the telegraph would whet the appetite for news, strengthen national defense, and boost the country’s go-ahead businessmen, transforming the press, the military, and the marketplace.” 3 Morse’s line would not be finished until 1844, but not long after other companies began to erect telegraph lines rapidly, eventually linking the entire country. This invention helped put to rest fears that westward expansion would lead to the decline of American values in the frontier due to the distance of separation.

Related Events:

1844:Morse Sends First Telegraph


Sources:

"Electro-Magnetic Telegraph", Boston Cultivator, 17 June 1843 (189). "Electro Magnetic Telegraph", Brooklyn Eagle, 9 December 1843. Kenneth Silverman, Lightning Man, (New York City: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003), 220-222, 240-242. Carleton Mabee, American Leonardo: The Life of Samuel F.B. Morse, (New York City: Alfred A. Knopf, 1943), 252-261. "Utility of Professor Morse's Telegraph", Brooklyn Eagle, 11 July 1844.


Footnotes:

1 "Electro-Magnetic", Boston Cultivator, 189

2 Silverman, Lightning, 240

3 Silverman, Lightning, 242


1843: First Blackface Minstrel Quartet

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description

In February of 1843 the Virginia Minstrels performed the first public presentation of the blackface minstrel quartet show at the Bowery Amphitheatre in New York City. The Minstrels were comprised of Daniel Decatur Emmett, an early minstrel star, along with Frank Brower, “Billy” Whitlock and “Dick” Pelham. Emmett played violin, Whitlock the banjo, Brower the castanets, and Pelham the tambourine. Audiences had already become accustomed to single blackface performers such as Thomas Rice of “Jim Crow” fame. Unaccustomed to a quartet of blackface minstrels, there were initially mixed reactions to the Virginia Minstrels’ performances, but their popularity and the popularity of other similar minstrels soon soared. Minstrel shows appeared in an age where Americans were not prone to attend the theater but rather museums, lectures, circuses or fairs. These blackface performers, including the Virginia Minstrels, were normally white Northern males with basically no experience or knowledge of Southern plantation life who tried to emulate the lives of slaves on the plantation through their songs and dances. Yet, these shows were written by white men and did not portray the true ideas or feelings of blacks. “Minstrel shows expressed class identification and hostility; they conveyed ethnic satire as well as social and political commentary of wide-ranging, sometimes radical character.” 1 Thus, in hindsight, these songs can be seen as a mockery to the black race and extremely racist. “Blackface minstrelry’s dominance of popular entertainment amounted to half a century of inurement to the uses of white supremacy.” 2

Related Events:

1859: 'Dixie' song was written

Sources:

Carl Wittke, Tambo and Bones, (Durham: Duke University Press, 1930), 20-60. Alexander Saxton, “Blackface Minstrelsy and Jacksonian Ideology” American Quarterly,( March, 1975), 3-28. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0678%28197503%2927%3A1%3C3%3ABMAJI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z, Accessed 9 November 2006]. "Reproof From A Crazy Man", Brooklyn Eagle, 10 August 1843.


Footnotes:

1 Saxton, "Blackface", 4

2 Wittke, Tambo, 27


1843: Millerism

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description


Revivalist movements, such as those encompassing the Second Great Awakening, occurred throughout the 19th century. One of the most dramatic, if not the most extreme, was the Millerite movement led by William Miller, a Baptist minister from Massachusetts. Miller, through his own deciphering of biblical prophecies within the Book of Daniel, declared that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to set up His millennial kingdom would happen at some point between March 21, 1843 through March 21, 1844. Miller had remained a rather obscure preacher announcing this message of doom while traveling throughout the small towns of New England until convert Joseph Himes brought Millerism into the limelight. Through aggressive promoting the Millerite movement spread throughout the Northeastern cities. What had once been a localized sect became a national religious phenomenon. In regards to this phenomenon Christian Observer remarked, “Several in our city closed their stores and shops some weeks since, in order to be in readiness for the coming of the Saviour.” 1Millerites came from all social classes and from numerous Protestant denominations. While principally a Northern movement, the Millerite movement emerged during a time when society was optimistic about progress but also wary of threats to the traditional American values of republicanism. These transitional years from federalism to jacksonianism were years of uncertainty. “Miller introduced a precisely defined cataclysm that promised to transcend both the old and the new orders, and thousands of Americans gladly heard his radical message.” 2 The “Adventist” movement would live on after the “Great Disappointment” in 1844 to become the Adventist churches of today that have thousands of members across the country.


Related Events:

1843: “Sojourner Truth”


Sources:

“Millerism”, Brooklyn Eagle, 18 March 1843. “The Excitement of Millerism”, Christian Observer, 18 October 1844, 166. Everett N. Dick, William Miller and the Advent Crisis, (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1994), 83-99. David L. Rowe. Wayne R. Judd. The Disappointed (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1987), 1-35. David Arthur, The Rise of Adventism, (New York City: Harper & Row, 1974),154-172.


Footnotes:

1 "Excitement", Christian Observer, 166

2 Rowe, Disappointed, 17


1843: Sojourner Truth

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description

Born into slavery, Isabella Baumfree was set free when the state of New York abolished slavery in 1827. Shortly after, she converted to Christianity and began work as a domestic servant. On June 1, 1843, inspired by God, Isabella changed her name to “Sojourner Truth” and left her life in New York to preach the word of God. “Sojourner” because God called her to travel and “Truth” because God called her to proclaim the truth to His people. While initially focusing on the gospel, Sojourner eventually began to speak for abolition and women’s rights. One observer remarked, “ It is truly wonderful with what power this unlettered slave mother makes her appeals to the hearts and consciences of the people.”1 Remaining relatively obscure until the 1850s, Truth spent the years in between living at a utopian community of abolitionists, feminists, and pacifists. Truth also got involved briefly in the Millerite movement of the early 1840s before publishing her Narrative in William Lloyd Garrison’s Liberator. Yet she did not gain notoriety until her “Ain’t I a Woman” speech at the Woman’s Rights Convention in Ohio in 1854. “At a time when most Americans thought of slaves as male and women as white, Truth embodied a fact that still bears repeating: Among the blacks are women; among the women there are blacks.”2 Other than Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth is arguably the most famous African-American woman of the nineteenth century. She was a trailblazer in the areas of abolition and women’s rights, in that case not only for blacks but for white women as well.

Related Events:

1843: Millerism; 1851: "Ain't I a Woman" Speech Given by Sojourner Truth

Sources:

Joseph Merrill, " Sojourner Truth", Liberator, (October 1854), 159. Nell Irvin Painter, Sojourner Truth: A Life, A Symbol, (New York City: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996), 3-4, 73-76. Carleton Mabee, Sojourner Truth: Slave, Prophet, Legend (New York City: New York University Press: 1993), 43-59. “Sojourner Truth Dead”, New York Times, 27 November 1883.

Footnotes:

1 Merrill, "Sojourner", 159

2 Painter, Sojourner, 4


1844: Joseph Smith Murdered

From Bensonwiki

Description

On June 27, 1844, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum, were both gunned down outside of the jail in Carthage, Illinois. The two brothers had turned themselves in, under a false sense of security, when they destroyed a printing press two weeks earlier. The printing press belonged to the rival Mormon newspaper in Carthage, the Nauvoo Express, and it had printed several articles that criticized Smith’s practices and his beliefs. Therefore, using his power as mayor and lieutenant general, Smith ordered the printing press destroyed. After the press was destroyed, he was arrested under the impression that he would only spend a few weeks in jail. However, on June 27, an angry mob of over 200 people had gathered in Carthage and began discussing the idea of murdering Smith. That same afternoon they barged into the jail and dragged Joseph and his brother into the street where they were gunned down by a firing squad. With there deaths comes the end of over two decades of persecution by other religions and communities who were opposed to Smith’s practices. Joseph Smith left behind a wife, Emma Hale, and five children along with 27 other children through polygamous marriages.

Related Events

1820: Joseph Smith Vision 1830: Book of Mormon Published 1847: Salt Lake City Settled 1847: Brigham Young Becomes 2nd Mormon President 1850: University of Utah Founded

Sources

Johnson, DAB: Volume XVIII, (NY: Schribner's Sons, 1935), 310-311. Beard, The History of the United States, (New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1944), ?. Clifton Daniel, Chronicle of America, (Mount Kisco, New York: Chronicle Publications Inc., 1990), 328.


1844: Morse Sends First Telegraph

From Bensonwiki

Description

On May 24, 1844, while sitting in the United States Supreme Courtroom, with such worthy spectators as Dolly Madison and Senator Henry Clay, Samuel F. B. Morse tapped out the first ever telegraph message. He wrote, “What hath God wrought” (A verse from Numbers XXIII, verse 23 of the Bible) to his friend, Alfred Vail, forty miles away at the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Station. This is the first time that a message had ever been transmitted between two cities. Morse invented the telegraph and its corresponding code in 1838 and he had been working on a way to send its signal over long distances as well as its language ever since. The code consisted of a series of dots and dashes with a variance of pauses between dots or dashes to represent certain letters of the alphabet. Spaces between words were six times the length of a single dot. Until recently, Morse had lacked the proper funding to see his vision completed, but during March of 1843, he received a $30000 grant from Congress to lay the line wire from Washington D.C. to Baltimore. This invention, with all of its capabilities, would revolutionize the world of communication by allowing information to travel from city to city at an amazing rate compared to the current speed of the postal service.

Related Events

1838: Morse Invents Telegraph 1843: $30,000 for Morse's Telegraph 1848: First Telegraph sent through Raleigh, NC

Sources

Clifton Daniel, Chronicle of America, (Mount Kisco, New York: Chronicle Publications Inc., 1990), 327. Linda Rosenkrantz, Telegram: Modern History As Told Through More Than 400 Witty, Poignant & Revealing Telegrams, (New York: Holt Publishing, 2003), ?. J. Franklin Jameson, Encyclopedic Dictionary of American Reference, (C.R. Graham, 1901), 466.


1844: Tragedy Aboard the USS Princeton

From Bensonwiki

Description

On February 28, 1844, an explosion occurred along the Potomac River near New York City aboard the USS Princeton that killing two of President Tyler’s cabinet men and several others; luckily, the President was not near the spot where blast when blast occurred. The President and several of his party members were aboard the new steam-powered battleship enjoying the demonstration of several new guns when the explosion occurred. The explosion occurred when the demonstration of one of the new 12-inch guns went terribly wrong. The explosion sent shrapnel in to the crowd, killing several of the seamen and several members of the President’s party. Most notably were two of Tyler’s cabinet members, Secretary of State Abel Upshur, and Secretary of Navy, Thomas Gilmer. Secretary Gilmer had only been appointed to this new position less then two weeks ago, on February 15, and he was considered a big supporter of the annexation of Texas. Abel Upshur became Secretary of State in 1843. The death of Upshur is of special importance because he was currently involved with negotiations with Texas to set up its annexation by the United States. President Tyler would be pressured into choosing John C. Calhoun to take his place, which would greatly affect the nation’s future because Calhoun was a huge supporter for expansion.

Related Events

1844: James K. Polk Wins Election 1845: Texas Becomes the 28th State 1846:Mexican American War 1847: Battle of Mexico City 1840: Presidential Election of 1840

Sources

Clifton Daniel, Chronicle of America, (Mount Kisco, New York: Chronicle Publications Inc., 1990), 321. Johnson, Dictionary of American Biographies: Volume VII, (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1936), 308-309. DAB: Volume XIX, (1931), 127.


1844: James K. Polk Wins Election

From Bensonwiki

Description

On November 5, 1844, James K. Polk of Tennessee became the eleventh President of the United States by defeating Whig candidate, Henry Clay of Kentucky. Until the election, Polk was not well known in the political world. In 1823, he became the Secretary of the State Senate at the age of 27. Two years later he was elected to serve of the House of Representatives for Tennessee, and he became Speaker of the House from 1835-1839. Therefore, little was known about Polk on a national scope compared to Henry Clay, “the great compromiser,” who was widely known for his great work with keeping the nation at peace. There are two particular factors that led to Polk’s victory. One factor was Polk’s stance on supporting American expansion in regards to the Texas and Oregon territories, and the other was the role that third candidate, James Birney, would play in the election,. The majority of Americans were in favor of expansion and Clay’s unwillingness to support it would sway many voters. Third party candidate, James Birney, would take away just enough votes from Clay to secure the victory for Polk. This election would, however, be met with lots of controversy. The accusations would be made that thousands of aliens would be naturalized, illegally, weeks before the election if they would promise to vote Democrat. In New York alone, 23,000 aliens were naturalized just a few days before the election.

Related Events

1844: Tragedy Aboard the USS Princeton 1845: Texas Becomes the 28th State 1845: James K. Polk Inaugurated 1846:Annexation of California 1846: Texas State Government Formed 1846:Mexican American War 1848: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

Sources

Several Authors, American Political Leaders: 1789-2005, (Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2005), 7 & 14. Arthur M. Schlesinger, jr., History of American Presidential Elections:1789-1968, (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1971), 747-854.


1844: Goodyear Patents Vulcanization Process

From Bensonwiki

Description

On June 15, 1844, Charles Goodyear received Patent Number 3,633, giving his exclusive rights to the vulcanization process of rubber. This process consisted of combining a mixture of sulfur and rubber and then heating it for a number of hours. His road to this discovery was a long and tedious process that would leave him in debt for the majority of his life. Goodyear first became interested in the rubber process almost twenty years earlier, when he began working with the Indian rubber, which worked terrible in the warm conditions of the summer. In 1836, he discovered a process of treating the surface of rubber, by mixing certain ingredients to reduce the sticky feature of rubber. Throughout the next 13 years of his life, he would desperately try to figure out the exact balance of chemicals in order to improve the quality of rubber. This would drive him deeper and deeper into debt with every failing experiment. Then one faithful day he accidentally knocked a mixture of sodium and rubber onto a hot stove and it surprisingly did not melt. Over the next few months, Goodyear would enthusiastically continue his experiments, while having to be funded $50,000 by his brother-in-law and the Ridder brothers from New York. He would never be able to financially reap the benefits of his hard work because all of the profit he made on his patent was used to his repay outstanding debts.

Related Events

1826: Goodyear Moves to Philadelphia 1837: Goodyear Obtains Patent No. 240 1839: Goodyear Made Assignor to Hayward's Patent 1908: Henry Ford's Model T

Sources

Benson John Lossing, Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History, Volume 1, (NY & London: Harper & Brothers Publishiing, 1915), (No Page # Given). Purvis, A Dictionary of American History, (Cambrige, MA: Blackwell Reference, 1995), 161. Johnson, DAB, Volume VII, (NY & London: Scribner's Son, 1931), 414. Lossing, Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History, (No Page # Given).


1845: Frederick Douglass Publishes his Autobiography

From Bensonwiki

In 1845 Frederick Douglass published his autobiography, The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. The book was a huge success and sold over 30,000 copies during its first five years. In the book Douglass recounts the horrors of slavery. He contradicts the pro-slavery argument that slavery was a Christianizing institution, arguing that slavery kept slaves from learning to read or learning about the bible. 1 He also described how slave life ruined the possibility for saves to have families that could stick together. 2 In publishing the book Douglass took a big risk because he was a runaway slave from Maryland and his new found celebrity could lead to his capture and return to the South. Douglass had to leave the country for Ireland where he lectured on abolitionist themes for two years. Before the release of his autobiography Douglass became good friends with the famous abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. 3 Garrison hired him to lecture with him around the United States. In these lectures he attacked the hypocrisy of the United States saying that no country had laws that were as, “cruel, malicious, and infernal as the United States... Every page [of American Law] is red with the blood of the American slave.” 4 From 1851-1860 Douglass published the abolitionist paper the Frederick Douglass paper in Rochester, New York. His abolitionist speeches made Frederick Douglass famous and after the Civil War he held numerous prominent political positions.

Footnotes

1 Nathan Irvin Huggins, Slave and Citizen: the Life of Frederick Douglass (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1980), 21.

2 Ibid, 21-22.

3 Ibid, 17.

4 Ibid, 37.

Related Events

1866: Passage of the Civil Rights Act, 1841: Anti-Slavery Lecture Frederick Douglass

Sources

Nathan Irvin Huggins, Slave and Citizen: the Life of Frederick Douglass (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1980)

Gregory P. Lampe, Frederick Douglass: Freedom’s Voice, 1818-1845 (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1998)


1845: Cassius M. Clay’s The True American

From Bensonwiki

Cassius M. Clay was an abolitionist from Madison County, Kentucky and was born October 19, 1810. On June 3, 1845 Clay created the first issue of The True American, and antislavery paper in the city of Lexington Kentucky. 1 He set up shop on Mill Street, in a big brick building, which e transformed into a fortress. He stocked his building with a cannon, guns, and pikes, anticipating trouble.2 The goals of The True American was to get constitutional emancipation for slaves and to defend white liberties.3 His strategy was to drive a wedge between slaveholders and non slaveholders in Kentucky. He also desired to create an independent emancipation party in Kentucky.4 He posed the question to Kentuckians, “Where is the man who will sacrifice present power to the contingency of hereafter rising with the swelling tide of freedom?”5 It was not long before his paper was perceived as a nuisance. Some suggested that the paper was insurrectionary. During this controversy Clay published a comment that actually appeared to be a revolutionary threat to slave-owners. Since he was known to have weapons the Kentuckians interpreted it as a threat. Clay was brought to trial and Judge Thomas Marshall declared Clay a trespasser in Lexington and order that his paper equipment be shipped to Cincinnati, Ohio and clay e removed by force. Essentially, Clay was run out of own for his beliefs.6

Footnotes

1 David L. Smiley, Lion of White Hall, (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1962), 83.

2 Ibid, 82.

3 Ibid, 83.

4 Ibid, 88.

5 Ibid, 89.

6 Ibid, 98.

Related Events

1821: 1821 Benjamin Lundy Publishes First Issue of the Genius of Universal Emancipation ,1831: Garrisons Liberator

Sources

Cassius M. Clay, “Address of Cassius M. Clay; to the People of Kentucky,” Boston Recorder (1830-1849). Boston: Feb 20, 1845. Vol. 30, Iss. 8; pg. 30, 2 pgs accessed 14 November2006 (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=809169412&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP;)

David L. Smiley, Lion of White Hall, (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1962)


1845: James K. Polk Inaugurated

From Bensonwiki

On March 4, 1845 James Polk was inaugurated as the eleventh president of the United States. In his inauguration speech Polk laid out goals of his presidency. He stated in his speech he felt tariffs should be for revenue not for protection. He spoke at length about the importance of bringing Texas into the Union along with the Oregon Territories. 1 In his one term as President Polk achieved almost all of his goals. Texas joined the union in 1845. Oregon became a territory of the U.S. in the 1846 Oregon Treaty with England. 2 He wanted to buy California and ended up getting it after a very successful war with Mexico in 1946 and 1947. 3 The Treaty of Guadeloupe gave the U.S. California, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona. Polk was able to turn back most of the tariffs passed in 1942 and formed a central treasury. 4 One of the few failures of the Polk era was the unsuccessful attempt to purchase Cuba from Spain. Polk entered his presidency when the feeling of Manifest Destiny was at its Zenith and he took the opportunity to expand U.S. Territory more than any other president.


Footnotes

1 “Inaugural Address of James K. Polk,” (accessed 8 November 2006); available at http://ww.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/polk.htm.

2 Charles A. McCoy, Polk and the Presidency (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1960), 92.

3 Ibid, 93-120.

4 Ibid, 148.

Related Events

1845: Texas Becomes the 28th State, 1846:Mexican American War, 1846: Oregon Treaty, 1846:Annexation of California, 1844: James K. Polk Wins Election

Sources

Paul H. Bergeron, The Presidency of James K. Polk (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1987)

“Inaugural Address of James K. Polk,” (accessed 8 November 2006); available at http://ww.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/polk.htm

Charles A. McCoy, Polk and the Presidency (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1960)


1845: The Phrase Manifest Destiny Popularized by John L O’Sullivan

From Bensonwiki

John L. O’Sullivan popularized the phrase Manifest Destiny in 1845. Sullivan was a publisher and supporter of the Democratic Party. He first used the term in 1845 in The Democratic Review. This article largely went unnoticed. It was his article in The New York Morning News February 27, 1845 that made these two words the catch phrase to justify U.S. expansionism. He wrote, “…It is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty…” 1 Manifest Destiny implied a God given right and duty for Americans to spread their version of democracy across the continent. The use of this phrase came to the forefront just as the U.S. was thinking about annexing the Texas Republic in 1845 and Oregon Territories in 1846. 2 During this time the U.S. expanded from Florida on the Atlantic to California and the Oregon Territories on the Pacific. Many believers of Manifest Destiny thought the whole Continent of North America should fall under the umbrella of Republican Democracy. Canada, Mexico and Cuba were candidates for expansionism, which never materialized because of racial, slave and other issues.

Footnotes

1 Frederick Merk, Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Incorporated, 1963), 31-32.

2 Ibid, 33.

Related Events

1845: Texas Becomes the 28th State, 1846:Mexican American War , 1846:Annexation of California , 1849: Year of the Gold Rush

Sources

Charles A. McCoy, Polk and the Presidency (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1960)

Frederick Merk, Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Incorporated, 1963)


1845: Texas Becomes the 28th State

From Bensonwiki

After years of on and off negotiations Texas officially became a state December 28 1845. Texas won its independence from Mexico in 1836 forming the Republic of Texas. Texans most of whom were American settlers were eager to join the Union and voted for annexation that same year. Texans were eager for annexation and thus sent an envoy to Washington to hammer out the details. Andrew Jackson and later Martin Van Buren did not endorse annexation for fear of a war with Mexico. Van Buren also had concerns about adopting another slave state into the United States. In 1938 Texas got tired of waiting for an answer and withdrew their offer. John Tyler worried about England’s relationship with Texas and reopened annexation discussions with Sam Houston. Mexico threatened war if annexation occurred and offered to recognize Texas as an independent nation if they would agree not to become annexed. The election of Polk, an avid expansionist, gave Tyler the mandate to rush annexation through before he left office. The annexation deal passed the U.S. Congress just before Polk was sworn in and was finalized ten months later.

Related Events

1823: Monroe Doctrine, 1845: James K. Polk Inaugurated, 1845: The Phrase Manifest Destiny Popularized by John L O’Sullivan

Sources

Linda S. Hudson, Mistress of Manifest Destiny (Austin: Teas State Historical Association, 2001)

Charles A. McCoy, Polk and the Presidency (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1960), 93-120.


1846:Rotary Printing Press

From Bensonwiki

Description

Mr. Ingram invented the Rotary Printing Press in 1846. The printing and impression cylinders are of equal size, which enables three whole sheets to be printed at each revolution or two copies of the half sheet. Attached to this printing machine is the folding machine, which can be worked in company or separately from the printing machine to cut and fold the sheets as fast as they are printed. The size of the cylinder has been increased so that multiple engraving plates can be placed on the same printing cylinder. The impression cylinder is the piece, which brings the paper into contact with the inked type of the printing cylinder, which rotates at the same speed. The Ingram machine was able deliver 6,500 perfect copies an hour of the illustrated London news with its supplements. The modern printing press is able to mass-produce newspapers and other printed literature with great accuracy. Mr. Ingram entrusted Messrs Middleton and Company engineers from Southwark to engineer his machine. This machine is the modern printing press which is able to mass-produce newspapers and other printed literature with such accuracy.

Related Events


Sources

Ingram rotary press at the Paris Exhibition, Scientific American (1845-1908); No 9, 1878; Vol XXXIX, Nov 19 APS Online Pg. 291

Hoe’s Fast Press, Scientific American (1845-1908); May 1, 1847; Vol. 2., no 32.; APS Online pg. 252


1846: Oregon Treaty

From Bensonwiki

Description

This treaty is also known as the Treaty of Washington and it is between the United States and Great Britain over the Oregon boundary dispute, which had been claimed by both nations since the treaty of 1818. The Oregon Treaty was signed in Washington D.C. on June 15, 1846. The main people involved in negotiating this treaty were James Buchanan of the United States and Richard Pakenham of Great Britain. The treaty set the 49th parallel as the U.S.-Canadian border with the exception of Vancouver, which remained a British possession. This treaty also defined the border in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This is an island, which both the British and Americans had settled. Shipping rights in this area were to remain free and open to both parties around this island. As a result of this treaty not making it clear of who owned the Island of San Juan, there was a bloodless crisis known as the Pig War. George Pickett, later a confederate general, was stationed on this island during the Pig War.

Related Events

1818: Treaty of 1818 1841: Opening Oregon Trail

Sources

The Oregon Treaty, The Albion, A journal of News Politics and Literature (1822-1876); jul 18, 1846;5,29; APS Online pg. 346

The Oregon Treaty: Official, James Buchanan; Richard Pakenham, New York Observer and Chronicler (1833-1912); Jul 25, 1846; 24;30 APS Online Pg.119

The Oregon Treaty, James K Polk; James Buchanan, Trumpet and Universalist Magazine (1828-1851); Aug 15, 1846, 19,9; APS online pg.35


1846:Mexican American War

From Bensonwiki

Description

Soldiers of the United States of America advanced to the Rio Grande, which was considered as the boundary of Texas and Mexico by the U.S. government. The Mexican government considered their boundary as a river called the Nueces, which is 150 miles north of the Rio Grande. Mexican soldiers engaged and killed two of U.S. soldiers in this no man’s land between the two perceived boundaries. President Polk asked for a declaration of war stating that “ American blood had been spilled on American soil” which was not exactly an accurate statement. The United States declared war on May 13,1846 and the Mexican government declared war on May 23,1846. General Winfield Scott led the first major amphibious landing in the history of the United States at Vera Cruz, Mexico. General Scott then seized the fortress at Vera Cruz, which held 3,400 Mexican soldiers. Cerro Gordo is the next battle in which Santa Anna, the President of Mexico, set up an ambush, that was discovered by an advance unit of the United States military. The city of Puebla, Mexico was taken without a battle on May 15,1846. Mexico city was occupied in the Battle of Chapultepec. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the war, was signed on February 2, 1848.

Related Events

1848: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

Sources

The American Army on the Rio Grande,The Albion, A journal of News, Politics and literature (1822-1876); May 16, 1864; 5,20;APS Online PG 238

Jesús Velasco-Máquez, "A Mexican Viewpoint on the War With the United States," on the KERA PBS website http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/md_a_mexican_viewpoint.html


1846:Cape Girardeau meteorite

From Bensonwiki

Description

A meteorite fell around 3 o’clock on the afternoon of August 14, 1846. It fell with a loud sound on a small farm owned by William Free an Englishman. His farm is 7 ½ miles south of Cape Girardeau in southeastern Missouri. The meteorite broke upon hitting the earth into three pieces. Two of the pieces, which became property of a local museum together, weighed 2,058 grams. The form is roughly rectangular with the dimensions of 12x10x10 centimeters. The surface of the object is smooth with no sharp edges or angular projections. The form has a spot that appeared to be from the oxidation of iron ore. The general color is light gray except where the color has been affected by rusting of the iron. The makeup of this rock consists of 91 percent iron, 7 percent nickel and then less then one percent of copper and cobalt. The mass as a whole seems to be somewhat porous and easily fractured. This meteorite has a similar composition to one that was found in Utah.

Related Events


Sources

Edward S Dana; Samuel L PenField, "Art xxvII—On two hitherto undescribed Meteoric Stones", American Journal of Science (1880-1910); Sep 1886; 32, 189; APS Online pg. 226


1846:Annexation of California

From Bensonwiki

Description

The State of California was formed in the aftermath of the Mexican-American war when the American residents of the area revolted and gained control of the state. The annexation of California was seeped in the argument over the western expansion of slavery. There was talk that it should be free soil since Mexico had outlawed slavery in these territories. The compromise of 1820 was also brought up since it established the progression of slavery for the land purchased in the Louisiana Purchase. These debates ultimately did not matter since due to an influx of people the republic of California was able to establish itself as a free soil state before the congress could even approve its formation. This issue was a major one since California was accepted as a free state into the Union by the president and not by a declaration of congress where this power should lie. The major debate during the period of the Mexican War discussed whether the President or Congress had the power to declare war and create states.

Related Events

1846:Mexican American War

Sources

Annexation of California, Massachusetts Ploughman and New England Journal of Agriculture (1842-1906) Sep 5, 1846; APS Online Pg. 2

Slaves in California, National Era (1847-1860); may 4, 1854; Vol Viii,. No 383 Aps online page 71


1847: First US Postage Stamps

From Bensonwiki

Description

Great Britain created the first postage stamp in the world in 1840, called the penny black, which bore the portrait of Queen Victoria.1 The rest of the world followed Great Britain’s lead and the first private stamp appeared in America in 1842, albeit by an English citizen.2 Municipal American postmasters in New York and other majors followed, issuing stamps in 1845.3 Congress saw the writing on the wall, and in May of 1847 issued a directive for federally-sponsored postal stamps, which first appeared in Washington, D.C on July 1, 1847.4 Congress issued a pair of stamps bearing the likenesses of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, the former costing five cents and the later ten.5 The values of a federally issued postage stamp cannot be underrated, creating a standard payment for postage, easing mail distribution in the United States, and aiding international mail distribution as well.

Related Events:

1846:Rotary Printing Press

Sources:

1Donald M. Reid , “The Symbolism of Postage Stamps: A Source for the Historian” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 19, No. 2. (Apr., 1984), pp. 228. JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0094%28198404%2919%3A2%3C223%3ATSOPSA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5 , Accessed 15 November 2006]

2Ibid.

3Ibid.

4Ralph Berens, ed., Chronicle of America, (Mount Kisco, New York: Chronicle Publishers), 329.

5Ibid.


1847: Battle of Buena Vista

From Bensonwiki

Description

Most battles, although important for the outcome of war, do not deserve much study or importance in general histories. However the American victory at Buena Vista is relative as an example of American political infighting during a time of war. General Zachary Taylor, who commanded the American forces at Buena Vista, had recently won a string of battles in Northern Mexico at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma now faced a superior army led by Antonio López de Santa Anna.1 The American force was vastly outnumbered three to one as Mexican forces numbered around 15,000. However, Taylor’s men decisively defeated the Mexican army on February 23, 1847, effectively ending the American campaign in northern Mexico2 . Taylor was lauded as a military hero throughout America, which caused President Polk to view Taylor as a political rival, and instead make Winfield Scott the commanding general for the attack on Mexico City. Polk’s fears would eventually come true, as Taylor won the next presidential election.

An a trivial note, the future Confederate general Braxton Bragg, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and Union General Sherman all earned military recognition in this battle.

Related Events:

1845: James K. Polk Inaugurated

1845: The Phrase Manifest Destiny Popularized by John L O’Sullivan

1845: Texas Becomes the 28th State

1846: Oregon Treaty

1846:Mexican American War

1846:Annexation of California

1847: US Occupies Vera Cruz

1847: Fall of Mexico City

1848: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

Sources:

1Ralph Berens, ed., Chronicle of America, (Mount Kisco, New York: Chronicle Publishers), 328.

2Ibid.


1847: US Occupies Vera Cruz

From Bensonwiki

Description

After the American victories at Buena Vista and Palo Alto, it was evident that General Taylor could not do any more for American victory in the Northern front. Troops were taken from his command and given to General Winfield Scott, or “Old Fuss and Feathers” who planned to conduct an amphibious assault on the Mexican port city of Vera Cruz and consequently move to capture Mexico City and thereby end the war. On March 9th, in the first major American amphibious assault, the American troops invaded Mexico on Collado Beach; 3 miles south of Vera Cruz.1 Amazingly there were no American casualties as the Mexican Commander General Juan Morales sought to save his army for the defense of the city, and did not contest the landings.2 After organizing inland, Scott’s engineer, the future Confederate general Robert E Lee, set up a artillery bombardment of a dozen 8-inch, and 24 and 32 pound guns, then the most powerful artillery in the world.3 After it became clear that Vera Cruz could not stand up to such a powerful bombardment, Morales surrendered the city to the Americans.

Related Events:

1845: James K. Polk Inaugurated

1845: The Phrase Manifest Destiny Popularized by John L O’Sullivan

1845: Texas Becomes the 28th State

1846: Oregon Treaty

1846:Mexican American War

1846:Annexation of California

1847: Battle of Buena Vista

1847: Fall of Mexico City

1848: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

Sources:

1K. Jack Bauer, “The Veracruz Expedition of 1847” Military Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 3. (Autumn, 1956), pp. 168. JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-3931%28195623%2920%3A3%3C162%3ATVEO1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I, Accessed 15 November 2006]

2Ibid.

3Ralph Berens, ed., Chronicle of America, (Mount Kisco, New York: Chronicle Publishers), 329.


1847: Fall of Mexico City

From Bensonwiki

Description

Following the successful amphibious invasion at Vera Cruz and its subsequent capture, the American Army under Winfield Scott abandoned its supply base and advanced towards Mexico City, prompting the famed Duke of Wellington to remark “Scott is lost. He cannot capture the city and he cannot fall back upon his base.”1 Winfield Scott, known as “Old Fuss and Feathers,” quickly proved the Duke wrong winning bloody victories at Cerro Gordo, Contreras, and Churubusco before finally arriving before Mexico City in August 1847.2 The American army surrounded the Mexican capital and seized the national fortress of Mexico, Chapultepec, in an assault on September the 12th. Following this defeat, and the entrance of American volunteers under the command of General Quitman into the city itself, Santa Anna abandoned Mexico City on September 14th, making the Americans the rulers of the “Hall of Montezuma.”3

The seizure of Mexico City was the last major battle of the Mexican-American war, and effectively proved to be the end to the conflict, as it set up the treaty of Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 which ended the war.

Related Events:

1845: James K. Polk Inaugurated

1845: The Phrase Manifest Destiny Popularized by John L O’Sullivan

1845: Texas Becomes the 28th State

1846: Oregon Treaty

1846:Mexican American War

1846:Annexation of California

1847: Battle of Buena Vista

1847: US Occupies Vera Cruz

1848: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

Sources:

1Ralph Berens, ed., Chronicle of America, (Mount Kisco, New York: Chronicle Publishers), 329.

2Ibid.

3Ibid.


1847: Mormans Settle Salt Lake City

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Mormons shared the same feelings of Manifest Destiny which were sweeping America in the 1840’s. Mormon scouting expeditions published glowing reviews of the West, especially Oregon and California, one report saying that no country could compete with the fertility and natural advantages of California.1 However, increased persecution, caused by the Mormon’s practice of polygamy, in Nauvoo, Illinois and Independence, Missouri made Mormons realize they would be forced to live in an uninhabited area to avoid additional conflicts. The founder of the Church of Latter Day Saints, Joseph Smith, called for Mormon settlement in the Salt Lake Basin, were they could live in peace and isolation, shortly before a mob killed him in 1844 stating “I prophesize that the Saints will encounter more affliction and would be driven to the Rocky Mountains.”2 Brigham Young fulfilled Smiths dreams by leading a Mormon party to the shores of Great Salt Lake on July 24, 1847.3 The areas the Mormons settled, initially proclaimed the State of Deseret, would later join the union as the State of Utah.

Related Events:

1820: Joseph Smith Vision

1830: Book of Mormon Published

1847: Brigham Young Becomes 2nd Mormon President

1850: University of Utah Founded

Sources:

1Richard H. Jackson , “Mormon Perception and Settlement” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 68, No. 3. (Sep., 1978), pp. 320. JSTOR:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-5608%28197809%2968%3A3%3C317%3AMPAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2, Accessed 15 November 2006]

2Ibid.

3Ralph Berens, ed., Chronicle of America, (Mount Kisco, New York: Chronicle Publishers), 329


1848: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

From Bensonwiki

Description

On February 2, 1848 Nicholas Trist, chief clerk of the State Department concluded negotiations with the Mexican government in Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico.[1] Though early in the process Trist was recalled by President James Polk for supposedly making concessions on the Texas boarder, by February of 1848 Trist and the Mexican interim government that had replaced President Santa Anna had negotiated a treaty.[2] Though these were somewhat unclear circumstances, “so detestable [was] the war, and so glaringly its criminality on the part of the United States”, that Polk and his cabinet expected very little opposition to the treaty by the American public.[3] The treaty suffered little change in the House and was accepted quickly, but members of the Senate opposed the treaty not because of the negotiations themselves but because of “a variety of political considerations” including the recall of Trist. On Friday March 10, 1848 the Senate ratified the treaty on the request of President Polk and it was sent to the Mexican government for acceptance on May 25, 1848.[4] The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo proclaimed peace between The United States and Mexico, the boundary between the countries was marked by the Rio Grande and farther west by the River Gila, Mexican citizens living in these previously contested areas were granted full American citizenship, and the United States agreed to pay the Mexican government fifteen million dollars for the acquisition of this property.[5] By September 6, 1848 the last American forces left Mexico and the war was over.[6]

Sources

[1]The National Archives, “The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,” http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/guadalupe-hidalgo [accessed 15 November 2006].
[2]Justin H. Smith, War With Mexico, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1919), II, 236-240.

'[3]“Ratification of the Treaty,” Liberator, 17 March 1848, p. 42. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=566541902&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1163639102&clientId=43093 Accessed 10 November 2006].

[4]Charles M. Wiltse, John C. Calhoun: Sectionalist, 1840-1850, (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1951), 330.

'[5]“The Mexican Treaty,” Nile’s National, 19 July 1848, p. 43. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=2&did=776232602&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1163639199&clientId=43093 accessed 10 November 2006].

[6]K. Jack Bauer, Surfboats and Horse Marines, (Annapolis: United States Naval Institute, 1969), 232.

Related Events:

1846:Mexican American War 1847: Fall of Mexico City


1848: Illinois and Michigan Canal

From Bensonwiki

Description

On April 10, 1848 the Illinois and Michigan Canal opened across the state of Illinois. In late April the General Thorton arrived in Buffalo, New York—completing the journey from New Orleans, Louisiana and effectively connecting the Gulf Coast with the Great Lakes. Construction of the canal had begun in 1836 but was suspended due to a lack of funding in 1842. The project had already consumed half a million dollars, but the state of Illinois decided to complete construction for an additional $1,600,000. The ninety-six mile canal effectively increased trade across the country, and the use of an all-water rout allowed for cheaper international trade. It was anticipated that the canal would greatly increase the economic prosperity of both St. Louis, Missouri and the small city of Chicago, Illinois. Within a year Chicago was considered the nation’s largest inland port city, and quickly became a center for railroad expansion. The canal allowed the changing economy of America to move westward: “Believing that the future growth of St. Louis will depend more upon manufactures than commerce, we are decidedly of opinion that the Illinois Michigan Canal will be of incalculable advantage to its prosperity.”[1] In an August issue of the Western Journal of Agriculture, the growing manufacturing industry of St. Louis is used to show the growing ability for western cities to produce due to increased transportation methods like the canal, and with that an increased capacity for “a market free from the competition of foreign producers”.[2]


Sources

[1] “Canal Tolls,” The Western Journal of Agriculture, Manufactures, Mechanic Arts, Internal Improvement, Commerce, and General Literature, 1,7 (July 1848), 390. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=1&did=336408601&SrchMode=1&sid=15&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1163702553&clientId=43093 , accessed 10 November 2006]
[2] “Manufactures in St. Louis,” The Western Journal of Agriculture, Manufactures, Mechanic Arts, Internal Improvement, Commerce, and General Literature, 1,8 (August 1848) 455. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=1&did=336408721&SrchMode=1&sid=4&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1163706389&clientId=43093 , accessed 16 November 2006]
“Illinois and Michigan Canal,” The Banker’s Magazine and State Financial Register (1846-1849), 3,6 (December 1848) 332-333. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=737280272&SrchMode=1&sid=15&Fmt=6&retrieveGroup=0&VType=PQD&VInst=PROD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1163702651&clientId=43093 , accessed 10 November 2006]
Chicago Public Library Digital Collections, “Down the Drain: Illinois & Michigan Canal,” http://www.chipublib.org/digital/sewers/canal.html# [accessed 10 November 2006].

1848: Free Soil Party

From Bensonwiki

Description

On August 9, 1848 a compilation of citizens unhappy with their distinct parties met in Buffalo, New York to nominate ex-President Martin Van Buren as their presidential candidate. Barnburners from the Democratic Party, members of the Liberty Party that effectively sabotaged Henry Clay’s 1844 presidential nomination, and Whigs who refused to support the new slave-owning nominee Zachary Taylor. [1] Some of them were outright racists, some were radical abolitionists, and all supported the Wilmot Proviso of 1846, which was a proposal for all territory gained in the Mexican American War to remain free of slavery.[2] At the Buffalo convention the platform was decided that there would be “no more compromises with slavery” in any new territories.[3] These radical abolitionists understood that they were in someway splitting the nation over the issue of slavery. In an address to free-soilers in the south, Dr. J.E. Snodgrass wrote: “Depend upon it, this is the last political engagement that will be fought with the old issues. The next question will be, ‘Freedom or Slavery?’ And the very fact of our people taking sides with freedom will show that the party which shall rally under that watchword is not a ‘sectional party’ but a party of principle.”[4] Though the party was short-lived and the nomination of Martin Van Buren to the presidency was ineffective, this platform set the stage for a new national party with more moderate abolitionist principles.


Sources

[1] Charles M. Wiltse, John C. Calhoun: Sectionalist, 1840-1850, (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1951), 367-369 ; Louis Filler, “Free Soil Party,” Encyclopedia Americana: The American Presidency, http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0165940-00&templatename=/article/article.html [accessed 15 November 2006].
[2] Richard S. Stenberg, “The Modivation of the Wilmot Proviso,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 18 (March 1932), 535. [JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/view/0161391x/di952209/95p0006b/0 , accessed 15 November 2006]
[3]Wiltse, Sectionalist, 368.
[4] J.E. Snodgrass, “To the Friends of Free Soil in the South,” July 31, 1848, National Era, 84 (10 August 1848), 127. American Periodical Series [Pro Quest: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=12&did=220162911&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1163652014&clientId=43093 , accessed 10 November 2006]

Related Events

1844: Presidential Election 1846: Wilmot Proviso


1848: Election of Zachary Taylor

From Bensonwiki

Description

On November 7, 1848 Zachary Taylor was elected to the United States Presidency. Born a Kentucky southerner, Taylor fought in the War of 1812, was named “Rough and Ready” during the second Seminole War, and was a General in the Mexican War.[1] In February of 1848 the Mexican War ended, and on June 7 General Taylor was nominated as the Whig party’s presidential candidate. In a letter to Henry Clay in April of that year, Taylor admitted to reluctantly agreeing to the wishes of members of the Whig party insisting that there were many better suited candidates, but the 171 votes for his nomination said otherwise.[2] For the United States, General Taylor seemed to be the perfect candidate. An October issue of the Liberator claimed that “He is the only man south of the Mason-Dixon line who can ever be elected. . . His patriotism, his genius, his unbounded honesty and entire devotion to the constitution and the Union, will ever secure him the support of a large majority in every portion of the United States.”[3] He was a slave owner, and therefore sympathetic to the south; and at the same time he was accepted by the Nation as a hero. An election edition of Nile’s National Register stated “The fourth of March, 1849, will revive the heroic age of the Republic. At the head of the Government will be a man with a character whose dimensions are suited to the office.”[4]


Sources:


'[1]Philip Kunhardt Jr., "The American President: Zachary Taylor:Old Rough and Ready (New York: Riverhead Books, 1999), pp. 140-147) found at: ” http://www.americanpresident.org/history/zacharytaylor/biography/resources/Articles/KunhardtTaylorBio.article.shtml [accessed 15 November 2006].

[2]Zachary Taylor, (30 April 1848) et al. eds., The Papers of Henry Clay (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1991), X, 451-452. A letter from Zachary Taylor to Henry Clay. ; Charles M. Wiltse, John C. Calhoun: Sectionalist, 1840-1850, ( Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1951), 364.
[3] “General Taylor,” Liberator, 27 October 1848, p. 170. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=16&did=566576002&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1163646899&clientId=43093 , accessed 10 November 2006]
[4]”The Presidency,” Nile’s National Register, 15 November 1848, p. 320. APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=18&did=776238592&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1163647026&clientId=43093 , accessed 10 November 2006]

Related Events

1846:Mexican American War


1848: Creation of Associated Press

From Bensonwiki

Description

In 1848 representatives from six New York Newspapers met and agreed to share their gathered information of international affairs. They funded a relay of foreign news and since that time the Associated Press has remained the largest news organization in the world. But recent evidence of nineteenth century Associated Press documents alludes to the possibility that the organization may have been founded two years earlier. These new sources reveal that in May of 1846 Moses Yale Beach of the New York Sun offered information on the Mexican-American War to other newspapers in New York. This date matches up nicely with the invention of the telegraph two years earlier that by this point would be attempting to connect the United States by wire. The evidence of the earlier date also supports the Associated Press’s “fundamental role, covering the news in war and peace, as envisioned by the member newspapers that created it."[1] Regardless of whether the organization was begun in 1846 or 1848, this phenomenon of sharing international news among rival papers now reaches a network of at least fifteen thousand media sources daily.

Sources

[1] Richard Pyle, Associated Press, “19th-century papers shed new light on origin of The Associated Press,” (31 January 2005), http://www.ap.org/pages/about/whatsnew/wn_013106a.html accessed 16 November 2006]
24/7 Real Media, “Associated Press Chooses Real Media,” http://www.247realmedia.com/about/press_2005/2005-02-07.html [accessed 16 November 2006]
Associated Press. (2006). In Encyclopedia Britannica, [Encyclopedia Britannica Online: http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9009944 accessed 16 November 2006

Related Events

1844: Morse Sends First Telegraph


1849: Harriet Tubman Escapes Slavery

From Bensonwiki

Description

On December 12, 1849, Harriet Tubman escaped from a plantation in Dorchester County, Maryland, after 27 years from slavery and fled north into Pennsylvania. Harriet was born into slavery under her master, Edward Brodess, Anthony Thompson’s stepson. When she was 25, she hired herself out to Mr. Thompson’s son, Dr. Anthony C. Thompson, to work in his home in the city. While she was working there, she overheard rumors that the Thompsons were planning to sell their slaves after the death of Mr. Brodess earlier that March. Harriet Tubman had always known the joys of freedom, because she lived in the area of the nation with highest population of freed blacks. Therefore, instead of being sold into further years of slavery and torture, Harriet became one of the nearly 300 slaves who escaped from slavery that year; that was the highest number of slaves to escape from slave states in the nation. She would escape into Wilmington, Pennsylvania, and with the help of Quakers, she would find her way to Philadelphia and join the Philadelphia Vigilance Committee. Within two years, Harriet would establish herself as a leader in the abolition movement and begin her journeys back into slave territories as a conductor in the Underground Railroad. Over the next few years, Harriet would make 18 more trips into the slave states and help lead over 300 slaves into freedom along the Underground Railroad.

Related Events

1843: Sojourner Truth 1850: Fugitive Slave Law 1850: End of Slave Trade in D.C.

Sources

Kate Clifford Larson, Bound for the Promised Land - Harriet Tubman, Portrait of an American Hero, (New York: Random House Publishing, 2004), 1 & 301-303. Catherine Clinton, Harriet Tubman: The Road to Freedom, (New York & Boston: Little Brown and Company, 2004), 46-47 & 230. Jean Millmax, Harriet Tubamn: The Life & The Life Stories, (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003), 18. Harriet Tubman Biography, "1849: Tubman Escapes Slavery" <http://www.harriettubmanbiography.com/_wsn/page2.html&gt; [accessed 15 October 2006].


1849: Year of the Gold Rush

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Gold Rush of 1849 would transform California from a simple farming and fishing communitiy into one of the fastest growing states in the country. After the discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in the winter of 1848, word traveled fast throughout the country. By the summer of 1848, word had traveled as far east as Texas. The main factor that led to the giant rush of people during 1849 was the discovery of a 24lbs piece of gold estimated to worth $50,000 at the time. Colonel Mason found the nugget and sent it Colonel E. F. Beake in Washington D.C. Once the newspapers got hold of the story, the rush was on. The population of California would increase 10-fold in the next two years: from 10,000 to over 100,000 by 1850 catapulting California into statehood status. Cities such as San Francisco would emerge from a city of only 800 people to a booming metropolis with 25,000 by the end of 1850. The majority of people who made the journey to California were young, single man looking for a quick way to get rich. However, even though some would get lucky and stumble upon some gold, most would leave empty handed. The people who made the most money during this era were saloon keepes and merchants. This era would also increase slavery tensions as workers found it an unfair advantage to those who brought their slaves to help them find gold.

Related Events

1846:Annexation of California 1846:Mexican American War 1848: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 1848: Gold Discovered at Sutter's Mill 1850: CA, NM, UT, and TX Resolutions

Sources

W. H. Hutchinson, California: Two Centuries of Man, Land, and Growth in the Golden State, (Palo Atlo, CA: American West Publishing Company, 1969), 15 & 109. Evelyn Wells & Harry C. Peterson, The '49ers, (Garden City, NY: Doubleby & Company, Inc., 1949), 14-17.


1849: Blackwell Becomes 1st Woman Doctor

From Bensonwiki

Description

In January 1849, Elizabeth Blackwell became the first women in the United States or Europe to receive a medical degree. News of her success would eventually reach an international scope, as people were amazed by this stunning accomplishment. The road to her medical success was not an easy one. She first found an interest in medicine in 1844 while she was teaching school in Asheville, NC. In the spring of 1847, she began being privately tutored by Dr. Samuel H. Dickson, a professor at Charleston MS. After being denied admissions to the medical colleges of Philadelphia and New York City, Blackwell applied and was accepted by the Geneva Medical College in early January of 1847. Her admission to the college was decided by a unanimous decision of the student body (who was all male). Some of the students voted for admissions because they believed that she could succeed, however, the majority of the students accepted her admissions as a practical joke, in hopes that she would fail. Needless to say, she did not fail and she would graduate near the top of her class in less than two years. Upon her graduation, Elizabeth left to study in London and Paris and she was enrolled at La Maternité on June 30, 1849.

Related Events

1848: Women's Rights Movement Begins 1854: Columbia College for Women Founded 1872: Susan B. Anthony Votes

Sources

Foner & Garraty, The Reader's Companion to American History, (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1991), 118. Johnson, DAB, Volume II, (NY: Scribner's Son, 1929), 320. Clifton Daniel, Chronicle of America, (Mount Kisco, New York: Chronicle Publications Inc., 1990), 335.


1849: Missiouri Supports Popular Sovereignity

From Bensonwiki

Description

On March 10, 189, the Missouri State Legislature introduced the idea that popular sovereignty should be the deciding factor over how its state should deal with the issue of slavery. The idea of popular sovereignty suggests that it should be the state’s decision, and not the decision of Congress to decide whether or not slavery will exist in that state. The idea was first formulated in December 1847, when Senator Lewis Cass of Michigan wrote in what came to be known as the “Nicholas Letter” that states should be the ones left to decide, not Congress, the rights of slavery in their state. This statement is in direct defiance to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state. This will also become a key issue in the growing tensions over slavery in the South, because Missouri is considered a southern state.

Related Events

1820: Missouri Compromise 1820: Maine Becomes 23rd State 1821: Missouri Becomes 24th State 1829: Mexican Govt Abolishes Slavery 1847: Nicholas Letter 1854: Kansas-Nebraska Act 1856: Violence in Kansas

Sources

Foner & Garraty, The Reader's Companion to American History, (Boston: Houghton-Mufflin Company, 1991), 852. Clifton Daniel, Chronicle of America, (Mount Kisco, New York: Chronicle Publications Inc., 1990), 334.


1850: Taylor Dies: Fillmore Becomes President

From Bensonwiki

Description

After celebrating extensive July 4th ceremonies in sweltering heat in 1850, President Zachary Taylor began feeling woozy and consumed a large amount of raw vegetables, milk, and water. He became ill the following day and was diagnosed with cholera morbus. He presumably died of it on July 9 though his cause of death has been largely debated.1

Taylor’s death marked a turning point in the Compromise of 1850 debates. Taylor, nominally a Southern Whig, had harbored a prevalent fear of the Slave Power of the South and consequently restricted Compromise measures to only issues of California and New Mexico and would not address slavery to keep from further alienating Southern Whigs. Nevertheless, by this time, Taylor was still thoroughly scorned by most Southerners for his support of the Wilmot Proviso, allegations of patronage, and most notably for his close political alliance with radical Northern Whig William Henry Seward.2

When Millard Fillmore assumed the presidency on July 10, the general spirit was that compromise would at last be possible. Fillmore was a Northern Whig who, ironically enough like his predecessor, managed to largely alienate his home region while appealing to the other half of the country. Fillmore was aware that his support of the Fugitive Slave Act would likely end his popularity in the North; however, he firmly championed compromise just as Taylor had advocated resistance of the plantation power. Fillmore’s efforts for compromise succeeded; Taylor’s efforts had been thwarted and the country entered into a sectional armistice.3

Related Events

1848 Presidential Election 1850 Compromise of 1850 1852 Presidential Election

Footnotes

1 James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 74; Silas Bent McKinley and Silas Bent, Old Rough and Ready: The Life and Times of Zachary Taylor, (New York: Vanguard, 1946), 285-287

2 Michael F. Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850s, (New York: Wiley, 1978), 78-79, 83; John C. Waugh, On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How It Changed the Course of American History, (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 2003), 38-40; McKinley and Bent, Rough and Ready, 276.

3 McPherson, Battle Cry, 75; William E. Griffis, Millard Fillmore: Constructive Statesman, Defender of the Constitution, President of the United States, (Ithaca, NY: Andrus & Church, 1915), 70; Waugh, On the Brink, 171


1850: Fugitive Slave Law

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Fugitive Slave Act, an integral part of the Compromise of 1850, was signed into law by President Millard Fillmore on September 18, 1850. The initial form of this law was advocated by Henry Clay of Kentucky in a January 29 speech to the Senate. Clay argued that in order to uphold the rights of slave owners inherent in the Constitution, the original Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 needed to be strengthened. President Zachary Taylor’s death on July 9 was a crucial event that led to this bill’s passage since it resulted in Fillmore’s persuasion of many Northern Whigs to abandon their opposition to the bill and reluctantly abstain from the final vote.1

The Fugitive Slave Law was probably the single most incendiary aspect of the Compromise to the North and South. Fugitive slaves were now under federal jurisdiction and, denied the right of trial, could be sent into slavery by the simple presentation of an affidavit of the purported slave owner. Furthermore, federal commissioners were paid more for deciding to send an African-American into slavery than declaring them free and now had the power to conscript Northerners into slave-catching posses. Northerners could be subject to intense fines for obstruction. Many Northerners perceived this as a clear attack of the Slave Power on white republican liberties since it forced slavery into their daily lives. Though slavery tensions were briefly placated by the Compromise, intense feelings of loathing and distrust emanated from the North and South regarding this measure.2

Related Events

1793 Fugitive Slave Act 1842 Prigg v. Pennsylvania 1850 Abolition of Slave Trade in D.C. 1850 Nashville Convention 1850 Georgia Platform 1852 Uncle Tom's Cabin 1860 South Carolina Secession

Footnotes

1 William E. Griffis, Millard Fillmore: Constructive Statesman, Defender of the Constitution, President of the United States, (Ithaca, NY: Andrus & Church, 1915), 147; James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: the Civil War Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 74-75; John C. Waugh, On the Brink of the Civil War: the Compromise of 1850 and How It Changed the Course of American History, (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 2003), 183; Henry Clay, "Speech to the Senate" (29 January 1850) in Melba Porter Hay and Carol Reardon, eds., The Papers of Henry Clay (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1991), X, 655-657.

2 Waugh, On the Brink, 183-184; Michael F. Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850s, (New York: Wiley, 1978), 89; PBS, "Eric Foner on the Fugitive Slave Act," < http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4i3094.html > [accessed 12 November 2006].


1850: End of Slave Trade in D.C.

From Bensonwiki

Description

The abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia was one of the measures constituting the laws known as the Compromise of 1850. Signed into law by President Millard Fillmore on September 20, 1850, this was the last component of the Compromise to pass.1 Though the abolition of the slave trade in D.C. had been advocated for decades, the clearest impetus for this action can be traced to Henry Clay’s January 29 speech to the Senate in which he proposed a number of measures he believed would save the nation and solve the sectional dispute. His fifth and sixth resolutions stated, respectively, that slavery should not be abolished in the capital without consent of the District and the neighboring slave states of Maryland and Virginia, and that the slave trade, however, needed to be abolished in D.C.2 As debate in the Senate progressed, Clay later clarified that this law would still allow intra-District slave trading and that any D.C. resident may at any time leave the District and purchase a slave to bring back for servitude. The purpose of the bill was principally to rid the nation’s capital of slave depots and inhumane auctions.3 Several Southern congressmen were outraged at such an attempt by the federal government to control slavery; they believed it was an indication of future federal involvement in Southern slavery.4 Overall, this measure was in fact a compromise to each side of the slavery issue since slavery remained in D.C. but with slight limitations.5

Related Events

1836 Gag Rule 1850 Fugitive Slave Law 1862 Slavery Abolished in D.C.

Footnotes

1 John C. Waugh, On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How it Changed the Course of American History, (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 2003), 184.

2 Henry Clay, "Speech to the Senate" (29 January 1850) in Melba Porter Hay and Carol Reardon, eds., The Papers of Henry Clay (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1991), X, 656-657.

3 Ibid, "Speech to the Senate" (3 September 1850), 803-804.

4 Waugh, On the Brink, 150-151; "Slave Trade in the District of Columbia," Liberator, 20, 37 (13 September, 1850), 146. [APS: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=143&did=566553582&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1163617887&clientId=43093, Accessed 14 November 2006]

5 Waugh, On the Brink, 184.


1850: CA, NM, UT, and TX Resolutions

From Bensonwiki

Description

One of the principal results of the Compromise of 1850 was the organization of western territories gained from Mexico. A series of measures were made into law on September 9, 1850 which had been compiled into a single speech by Henry Clay on January 28. First, California was admitted as a state and its 1849 constitution forbidding slavery was upheld. Southern pro-slavery congressmen had vehemently fought and delayed this bill since it would tip the balance in Congress toward antislavery states and also nullified their proposed extension of the Missouri Compromise slavery line to the Pacific Ocean.1

Furthermore, New Mexico and Utah were created as United States’ territories with slavery to be the sole decision of the territorial inhabitants; Congress would make no law permitting or prohibiting slavery there. This “popular sovereignty” neither benefited the North who wanted to approve the Wilmot Proviso or the South who wanted to guarantee slavery.2

Finally, the border dispute between Texas and New Mexico was settled in favor of New Mexico’s claims to land east of the Rio Grande while providing Texas with ten million dollars in compensation. Some proslavery Southerners expressed outrage that Texas, a slave state, was not granted its claims since the disputed land was south of the proposed extension of the Missouri Compromise line and slavery was not expressly protected in New Mexico.3

Even some Southern Whigs who were moderate on slavery felt cheated by the North regarding the organization of western lands particularly in the case of California. 4

Related Events

1824-1829 Mexican Abolition 1846 Wilmot Proviso 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo 1849 California Gold Rush 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act

Footnotes

1 Mark J. Stegmaier, Texas, New Mexico, and the Compromise of 1850: Boundary Dispute and Sectional Crisis, (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1996), 99-103; James C. Waugh, On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How it Changed the Course of American History, (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 2003), 27, 180; James F. Rhodes, History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850, vol. I, (New York: MacMillan & Co., 1892), 182; Robert W. Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), 294-295.

2 Rhodes, History, 180-182; Melba Porter Hay and Carol Reardon,eds., The Papers of Henry Clay (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1991), X, 807.

3 Waugh, On the Brink, 151, 179-180; Johannsen, Douglas, 294-295.

4 U.B. Phillips, The Life of Robert Toombs, (New York: Macmillan & Co., 1913), 97.


1850: Illinois Central Railroad Grant

From Bensonwiki

Description

On September 20, 1850 in Washington D.C., the same day as the passage of the bill abolishing the slave trade in the nation’s capital, the first large federal railroad land grant was issued to the states of Illinois, Mississippi, and Alabama to construct a railroad from Chicago, Illinois to Mobile, Alabama. This grant began a twenty year span of sizeable railroad land grants from Congress. The project was largely the work of Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois. He had proposed the bill on January 3 and had managed to get it passed despite the commotion of the Compromise of 1850 debates throughout the year. Douglas thoroughly envisioned Chicago as a supremely important industrial hub and made sure that it was connected to the rail line which included the Illinois Central, Mobile & Chicago, and Mobile & Ohio railroads. Furthermore, as the heir apparent to Henry Clay’s role of Great Compromiser, he also wanted to extend the railroad through the South to the Gulf of Mexico not only to garner Southern votes for the bill but to attempt to forge a type of economic unity to parallel the political unity intended to result from the Compromise of 1850 measures. Therefore, the land grant to Illinois, Mississippi, and Alabama not only created a precedent for governmental grants to provide interstate railroad transportation in the future but also was an indication of the growing importance of railroads in sectional politics.1

Related Events

1869 First Transcontinental Railroad

Footnotes

Lewis H. Haney, A Congressional History of Railways in the United States Vol. 1, (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1908), 197; Lewis H. Haney, A Congressional History of Railways in the United States Vol. 2, (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1906), 14; Robert W. Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), 306, 310-314; American Memory Project, "Statutes at Large, 31st Congress, 1st Session," 466-467,< http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=493) > [accessed 16 November 2006]


1850: Georgia Platform

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Georgia Platform was adopted by a convention of elected Georgia delegates in Milledgeville on December 10, 1850. The platform stated that Georgia would accept the results of the Compromise of 1850 and not secede provided that Congress would take no further action to eliminate slavery and most importantly that the North uphold the Fugitive Slave Law. This was a momentous precedent-setting decision since no other Southern state had yet decided to either uphold or nullify the Compromise. Georgia had thus set the example of conditional unionism.1

Southern politicians had been meeting throughout 1850 to discuss an appropriate response to the Compromise; the most notable convention was held in Nashville, Tennessee from June 3 through 11. The convention maintained a pro-union stance and proceeded to wait for the final bills to be passed. After the Compromise was completed in September, many ardent, disillusioned pro-slavery Democrats began meeting in statewide conventions to form Southern Rights Associations to advocate secession because of the grievances suffered by the South in the final legislation. A second far more radical Nashville Convention convened in November and urged secession. The Georgia Platform adopted in December quashed any real hopes of Southern secession however. Pro-Compromise Democrats broke from the Democratic Party and joined Whigs to form the Constitutional Union Party across the South which thoroughly trounced the Southern Rights Democrats in the 1851 elections. Fire-eating secessionists were thus forced to accept unionism. The Georgia Platform therefore effectively maintained the Union and even briefly redefined Southern political parties.2

Related Events

1833 Nullification Crisis 1850 Nashville Convention 1850 Creation of Southern Rights Democrats and Constitutional Union parties 1860 South Carolina Secession

Footnotes

1 Georgiainfo, "Carl Vinson Institute of Government," < http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/tdgh-dec/dec10.htm > [accessed 16 November 2006]; John W. Dubose The Life and Times of William Lowndes Yancy v. 1, (Reprint, New York: Peter Smith, 1942]), 252; Brooklyn, New York, Eagle, 16 December 1850; Arthur C. Cole, "The South and the Right of Secession in the Early Fifties," The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 1,3 (December, 1914), 382-383. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-391X%28191412%291%3A3%3C376%3ATSATRO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W, Accessed 16 November 2006]

2 U.B. Phillips, The Life of Robert Toombs, (New York: Macmillan & Co., 1913), 94-99; Brooklyn, New York, Eagle, 7 June 1850; Dubose, Yancy, 253; Cole, "South and the Right of Secession," 383.


1850: Furman University Chartered

From Bensonwiki

Description

Furman University received its charter from the state of South Carolina on December 20, 1850, and began holding classes on its new campus in Greenville the following year.1 Since the school’s initial opening in 1827 as the Furman Academical and Theological Seminary in Edgefield, the school had changed its name twice and been located in nearly half a dozen locations.2 The school had originally been founded by the South Carolina Baptist Convention and was named for its founder, Richard C. Furman.3 By 1850, the SCBC had realized the need of Baptist higher education in South Carolina and thus pursued obtaining a university charter for the school.4 Though Furman was founded by Baptists with the intention of primarily being a seminary, the university also incorporated classics and science into its academic regimen in 1850.5 Since that time, Furman University has blossomed into a highly praised liberal arts college with a strong emphasis on the commitment to learning. Furman University’s current president has described college as “a life-changing experience that endows us with a perpetual sense of belonging”6. As thousands who have passed through the halls of Furman could attest, the creation of the university in 1850 was an important landmark in Southern higher education.

Related Events

1825 Death of Richard Furman 1827 Opening of Furman Academy and Theological Institute 1851 First Classes of Furman University Held in Greenville 1958 New Campus North of Greenville Opens 1992 Furman Breaks ties with SBC

Footnotes

1 W.J. McGlothlin, Baptist Beginnings in Education: A History of Furman University, (Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1926), 103-104.

2 Ibid, 57-61; Courtney L. Tollison, Furman University, (Charleston: Arcadia, 2004), 7.

3 Tollison, Furman, 10.

4 McGlothlin, Baptist Beginnings, 99-104.

5 "A New Baptist College," Christian Watchman and Christian Reflector, 31,30 (25 July 1850), 118. [APS: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=1&did=839927412&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1163618219&clientId=43093, Accessed 14 November 2006]

6 David Shi, "Foreward" in Tollison, Furman, 6.


1851: Fugitive Slave Arrested and Rescued

From Bensonwiki

After the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law in September 1850, Northern abolitionists and free blacks feared the inevitable manhunt that would insue. Southerners viewed Boston as a hotbed of abolitionist activity; consequently, Southerners looked to Boston to test the North’s execution of the new law. [1] It was not until 15 February 1851 that the first fugitive slave arrest occurred in New England. Shadrach Minkins, a fugitive slave, was working at the Cornhill Coffee-House in Boston, when he was arrested. hadrach’s owner, John De Bree, a navy purser of Norfolk, sought after the return of his former slave solely to test the system. Less than three hours after his arrest, a black mob of citizens stormed the U.S. Circuit Court Room, where Shadrach was being held, and rescued him. Shadrach was taken through the Underground Railroad and eventually settled in Montreal where he lived the remainder of his life. [2]

With the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law, the Underground Railroad and the abolition movement experienced major growth. Though Henry Clay and other legislators tried to dismiss Shadrach’s rescue as a rare occurrence and highlight successful returns elsewhere, many Southerners viewed it as nothing less than a lapse in agreement. [3] Eventually, Boston invalidated the Fugitive Slave Law further convincing Southerners of the North’s unwillingness to compromise. [4] For the purpose of avoiding the Fugitive Slave Law, northern states passed personal liberty laws, these laws were later cited in South Carolina’s reasons for Secession. [5]

Sources

[1] Harold Schwartz, "Fugitive Slave Days in Boston," The New England Quarterly, 27, no. 2 (June 1954), 191-192. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0028-4866%28195406%2927%3A2%3C191%3AFSDIB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B, Accessed 1 November 2006]

[2] "An Alleged Fugitive Slave Captured and Afterwards Rescued by Mob," National Era, (20 February 1851), 30. [American Periodical Series: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=220216141&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 31 October 2006]; Gary Collison, Shadrach Minkins, From Fugitive Slave to Citizen, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 2-3; Schwartz, The New England Quarterly, 195-197.

[3] "Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America," The Independent, 25, no. 1258 (9 January 1873), 5. [American Periodical Series: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=839037972&sid=3&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 31 October 2006]; Schwartz, The New England Quarterly, 201-202.

[4] Schwartz, The New England Quarterly, 211-212.

[5] Marion G. McDougall, Fugitive Slaves (1619-1865), (Freeport: Books for Libraries Press, 1971), 70.

Related Events

1850: Fugitive Slave Law


1851: "Ain't I a Woman" Speech Given by Sojourner Truth

From Bensonwiki

Former slave Sojourner Truth was one of the most effective orators of the anti-slavery movement as well as the women’s movement during the 19th century. Freed from slavery in the mid-1840s, Truth felt an obligation to preach to people regarding the inherit rights of every individual. On 28 May 1851 at the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, Truth conveyed to the audience the necessity for women’s rights. [1] Twelve years later, Frances Gage, presiding officer at the convention, would write her accord of Truth’s speech where she recounted Truth’s infamous question, “Ain’t I a Woman?” Since it was recorded years after the speech’s delivery, the accuracy of this statement has been questioned by historians. [2] Regardless, the effects that Truth had on the audience at that particular convention were undoubtedly great. Truth was different than other feminists; she was not only a woman, but an illiterate black woman that had once been enslaved. The six foot tall orator fearlessly used Biblical references to counter arguments made by men regarding the inferiority of women. [3] She consistently used strong examples of Biblical women, and criticized men who quoted the Bible selectively to justify their beliefs, which many men did to not only justify the exclusion of women’s rights, but also slavery. [4] During her crusade for equality, Truth inspired many to join her efforts. In doing so, she doubly threatened two key institutions in the American South – slavery and the inferior roles of women.

Sources

[1] Jean Lebedun, "Harriet Beecher Stowe's Interest in Sojourner Truth, Black Feminist," American Literature, 46, no. 3 (November 1974), 360-361. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9831%28197411%2946%3A3%3C359%3AHBSIIS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F, Accessed 9 November 2006]

[2] Suzanne P. Fitch and Roseann M. Mandziuk, Sojourner Truth as Orator, (West Port, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997), 72-74.

[3] Lebedun, American Literature, 360-361.

[4] Ibid; "Bits Too Good to Be Lost," Home Journal, 26, no. 281 (28 June 1851), 2. [American Periodical Series: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=760731622&sid=3&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 10 November 2006]


1851: Anti-Slavery Paper Serializes Stowe's Famous Novel

From Bensonwiki

In 1851, Harriet Beecher Stowe presented Gamaliel Bailey of the National Era, a Washington-based anti-slavery paper, with her "series of sketches" of slavery in the South. [1] From 5 June 1851 to 1 April 1852, the National Era serialized Uncle Tom’s Cabin. [2] It used its original subtitle, "The Man That Was a Thing." [3] While Northerners embraced it as an accurate account of a bitter institution, Southerners denounced Uncle Tom’s Cabin as a fictitious piece of literature. They reacted with anger at Stowe’s harsh portrayal of the master and slave relationship. Southern literary magazines and newspapers viewed its serialization as the launch of a literary war between Northern critics and Southern critics. As a result, Southern magazines increased publications dramatically after the introduction of Uncle Tom’s Cabin into literary circles. Without any major publishing locations, however, the South remained at a disadvantage. Southern literary pieces were never able to successfully communicate a defense of its prized institution. [4]

The 3 March 1852 edition of The Liberator advertised the release of Stowe’s novel and praised the effects of its serialization. It claimed, "By all who have read it, it is pronounced to be the story of the age." [5] Though the serialization of Uncle Tom’s Cabin stirred audiences around the nation, it did not compare to the reactions received when it was officially published on 20 March 1852. [6]

Sources

[1] Severn Duvall, "Uncle Tom's Cabin: The Sinister Side of the Patriarchy," The New England Quarterly, 36, no. 1 (March 1993), 4. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0028-4866%28196303%2936%3A1%3C3%3AUTCTSS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4, Accessed 16 October 2006]

[2] Harriet B. Stowe, "Uncle Tom's Cabin: Or Life Among the Lowly," National Era, V, no. 23 (5 June 1851), 89. [American Periodical Series: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=220224221&sid=8&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 18 October 2006]; Harriet B. Stowe, "Uncle Tom's Cabin: Or Life Among the Lowly," National Era, VI, no. 274 (1 April 1852), 53. [American Periodical Series: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=220243461&sid=10&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 18 October 2006].

[3] Duvall, The New England Quarterly, 4.

[4] Eugene Current-Garcia, "Southern Literacy Criticism and the Sectional Dilemma," The Journal of Southern History, 15, no. 3 (August 1994), 340-341. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28194908%2915%3A3%3C325%3ASLCATS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5, Accessed by 16 October 2006]; Frank L. Mott, A History of American Magazines II, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957), 142-144.

[5] "Advertisement 3," Liberator, 22, no. 13 (26 March 1822), 52. [Ameican Periodical Series: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=566384782&sid=14&Fmt=1&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 18 October 2006]

[6] Mott, A History of American Magazines, 142.

Related Events

1852: Uncle Tom's Cabin Published


1851: Singer's Sewing Machine is Patented

From Bensonwiki

Though the first sewing-machine was invented and patented in 1846 by Elias Howe, Isaac Merritt Singer is renowned for his improvements of the sewing-machine and his unique business approach. Before he had even received a patent for his sewing-machine, Singer had begun advertising for it and for willing agents to sell it. Singer trusted his sewing machine with such vigor that he even started manufacturing it prior to the issue of his patent on 12 August 1851. [1] A review of Singer’s sewing-machine in the Circular reported that "the work done by the machine is more regular than that of the most expert seamstress." [2] By 1856 Singer’s company, the I.M. Singer Company, pioneered installment plans for the sewing machine, which expanded their consumer reach to lower income households. Large demonstrations were held in major cities of the Singer sewing-machine and other competitors were quickly following Singer’s tactics. The I.M. Singer Company had businesses in every major American city in the North and South, Canada, and Europe by 1863. [3]

The I.M. Singer Company and sewing-machine industry experienced tremendous growth throughout the 1850s and the decades following. The New York Observer and Chronicle noted in 1860 that sewing-machines "have become one the domestic institutions of the country." [4] By 1878, the Singer Company had risen to the top of the industry as the biggest sewing-machine producer in the world. [5]

Sources

[1] Elizabeth M. Bacon, "Marketing Sewing Machines in the Post-Civil War Years," Bulletin Historical Society, 20, no. 3 (June 1946), 90. [JSTOR: URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1065-9048%28194606%2920%3A3%3C90%3AMSMITP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B, Accessed 1 November 2006]

[2] "Sewing Women and Sewing Machines," Circular, 1, no. 24 (25 April 1852), p.95 [American Periodical Series: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=776251022&sid=5&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 10 November 2006]

[3] Bacon, Bulletin Historical Society, 92-93.

[4] "Sewing Machines," New York Observer and Chronicle, 30, no. 1 (5 January 1860), 5. [American Periodical Series: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=798775692&sid=6&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 10 November 2006]

[5] Bacon, Bulletin Historical Society, 92.

Related Events


1851: Unionists Win in Mississippi Elections

From Bensonwiki

Following the Compromise of 1850, there was great division in the Southern states between those satisfied with the legislation and those dissatisfied. The Union Party soon developed from the fraction of Democrats and former Whigs who favored the Compromise and wanted to preserve the Union, while the States Rights Party developed from the other half who favored secession. Likewise, the two Democrat Senators from Mississippi, Henry Stuart Foote and Jefferson Davis, split over the Compromise. After the passage of the Compromise in September 1850, Mississippi legislators decided to hold a convention where the state’s sentiments and options were to be discussed, primarily regarding secession. Delegates to the convention were to be elected on September 1 – 2, 1851. In the beginning of 1851, the Union Party nominated Henry Stuart Foote as its nominee for Governor and the States Rights Party nominated Governor John Quitman. In the September election of delegates, the Union party was widely victorious, winning 41 of Mississippi’s 59 counties. Quitman saw this as an early defeat and resigned from the race. His replacement was Jefferson Davis. The election of delegates foreshadowed the results of the November 3-5 gubernatorial election, where Henry Stuart Foote defeated Jefferson Davis. The Unionist candidate for Senate was also elected. The Georgia state elections of 1851 resulted in similar defeats of secessionism. These defeats of Seccionists in key Southern states would delay the Secessionist movement, even if it was only temporary. [1]

Sources

[1] Christopher J. Olsen, Political Culture and Secession in Mississippi, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 44-47; N.W. Stephenson, "Southern Nationalism in South Carolina in 1851," The American Historical Review, 36, no. 2 (January 1991), 325-333. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28193101%2936%3A2%3C314%3ASNISCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D, Accessed 8 November 2006]; "Mississippi Election," New York Daily Times, (18 November 1851), 3. [American Periodical Series: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=75115201&sid=1&Fmt=1&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 10 November 2006]

Related Events

1850: Fugitive Slave Law, 1850: End of Slave Trade in D.C., 1850: CA, NM, UT, and TX Resolutions, 1850: Georgia Platform


1852: Daniel Webster Dies

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On October 25, 1852, the great American politician Daniel Webster died at his home in Marshfield, Massachusetts. Webster, a long time senator from Massachusetts, was one of the most important politicians of the first half of the 19th century. Along with Henry Clay, Daniel Webster was one of the most influential members of the Whig Party. Webster was similar to Clay in that his chief concern above all else was the preservation of the Union. Although Webster abhorred the institution of slavery, he felt that it would die out in the United States in much the same way that it had in other places around the world.[1] This led him to believe that it was unacceptable to let a dying institution such as slavery divide the nation that he loved so much. Despite his opposition to slavery, it is said that he did more than anyone else to ensure that the Compromise of 1850 passed through Congress.[2] Even though he was a senator from Massachusetts, Webster’s passion for a united country outweighed sectional interests. [3]

Daniel Webster’s death contributed to the outbreak of civil war in the United States. Fewer and fewer politicians shared the belief in the American system that he had held for so many years. Sectional interests began to override national ones and the country began to split into distinct factions. With the outbreak of civil war in 1861, Webster’s dream of “liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseperable”[4] appeared lost forever.

Related Events:

1842:Webster-Ashburton Treaty 1850: Fugitive Slave Law

Sources:

[1] Gamaliel Bradford, As God Made Them, (Boston: The Riverside Press, 1929), 26.

[2] Ibid., 27.

[3] Ibid., 24.

[4] Ibid., 27.


1852: Uncle Tom's Cabin Published

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On March 20, 1852, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin was published in the United States.[1] The novel tells of the harsh reality of slavery as experienced by its central character, Uncle Tom. Perhaps no other book in history created so great a sensation as Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin did.[2] In less than a year, 120 editions were printed with total sales of more than 350,000 copies.[3] The appeal of Uncle Tom’s Cabin was not simply limited to the United States. It was published in over 40 languages, a true testament to the global appeal of the novel.[4] The novel caused an uproar in the United States. Northern anti-slavery advocates used the book as an example of the injustices of slavery and used it to support their calls for an end to slavery. Southerners were very angered by the depiction of slavery that Stowe had used in her novel. Stowe had brought the issue of slavery front and center in America. It incited emotions on both sides and caused people to become very passionate in their feelings towards slavery.

Related Events:

1851: Anti-Slavery Paper Serializes Stowe's Famous Novel

Sources:

[1] Noel B. Gerson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976), 68.

[2] Ibid., 70.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 71.


1852: Henry Clay Dies

From Bensonwiki

Description:

The great American Congressman and Whig Party leader Henry Clay died on June 29, 1852 at the National Hotel in Washington D.C.[1] He was a major player in American politics for more than 40 years and he was one-third of the “Great Triumvirate” of American politicians along with Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun.[2] Henry Clay played a major role in many events throughout his political life, but it was his ability to broker compromise that set him apart from his colleagues and led to his being dubbed the “Great Compromiser”. His two most famous compromises, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Great Compromise of 1850 dealt with the extension of slavery into the western territories. Although he was a slaveholder himself, Clay regarded slavery as an evil that would eventually die out in the United States as a result of its decline throughout the rest of the world.[3] Above anything else though, Clay’s loyalty belonged to the United States. All of his compromises were aimed at ensuring the preservation of the Union, which he felt was “essential to the peace and prosperity of the country”.[4] The death of Henry Clay was a significant blow not only to the Whig party and the state of Kentucky, but the entire nation as a whole. Gone was the man that had been able to elicit compromise at times when it seemed as if the nation was on the brink of disunion.

Related Events:

1820: Missouri Compromise 1824: Presidential Election 1825: Corrupt Bargain 1826: Senator John Randolph and Secretary of State Henry Clay duel 1850: Fugitive Slave Law

References:

[1] L.M. Briggs, Noted Speeches of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun, (New York: Moffet, Yard and Company, 1912), 177.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Gamaliel Bradford, As God Made Them, (Boston: The Riverside Press, 1929), 52.

[4] Glyndon G. Van Deusen, The Life of Henry Clay, (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1937), 418.


1852: Franklin Pierce Elected President

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On November 2, 1852, Franklin Pierce, was elected president of the United States. Pierce, a Democrat, defeated the Whig candidate Winfield Scott in a landslide victory. Pierce was able to garner 254 electoral votes while Scott only received 42 electoral votes.[1] During the campaigning leading up to the election, both candidates were hesitant to take on the major issues and as a result, the race essentially boiled down to a popularity contest.[2] Scott was not popular to many people in his party, especially to southern whigs because they viewed him as anti-slavery. As a result of their distaste for their party’s candidate, many Whigs, northern and southern alike, stay home during the election.[3] As a result, Scott did not stand much of a chance in the election.

The Election of 1852 was significant because it marked the last time that the Whig party would field a candidate for a presidential election. After its defeat in the election of 1852 and the deaths of party leaders Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, the party was left in shambles.

Related Events:

Sources:

[1]Larry Gara, The Presidency of Franklin Pierce, (Lawrence, University Press of Kansas, 1991), 39.

[2] Ibid., 38.

[3] Ibid., 19.


1852: First Plenary Council of Baltimore

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On May 9, 1852, the First Plenary Council of Baltimore was opened in Baltimore, Maryland. The meeting was attended by six archbishops and thirty five suffragan bishops. The Roman Catholic church at that time in the United States was under the jurisdiction of only one archdiocese, the archdiocese of Baltimore. The purpose of the council was to discuss certain issues within the church and to establish a framework by which the Church would operate in the United States. Numerous decrees were issued by the council. One important decree called for the priests to swear their allegiance to the Pope as the divinely appointed head of the church. Many other decrees were passed that had the similar intention of insuring that the Catholic Church in the United States followed the same basic principles and procedures as the church in Rome.

Perhaps the most significant decree to come out of the council was the call for bishops to establish a Catholic school in every parish and have the teachers paid with parochial funds. This call for a separate educational system for Catholics was important because it laid the groundwork for the establishment of parochial schools, which have been a major part of the education of American children for years.

On May 20, 1852, the First Plenary Council of Baltimore concluded.

Related Events:

1853: Anti-Catholic Riots

Sources:

Catholic Encyclopedia, “Plenary Councils of Baltimore,” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02235a.htm [accessed 11 November 2006]


1852: Scott v. Emerson

From Bensonwiki

Description:

In March of 1852, the Supreme Court of Missouri, in the case of Scott v. Emerson, ruled that former slave Dred Scott was not a free man.[1] The decision was in opposition to many previous cases in which the court had ruled the opposite way. The court declared, “the laws of other states had no extra-territorial effect in Missouri, except as Missouri saw fit to give them”.[2] In other words, Missouri would not be subject to the laws of other states, especially when those laws were hostile or came in conflict with the interests of the people of Missouri. Despite the precedence that had been set in previous cases, and the ruling of the lower courts in favor of Scott, the Missouri Supreme Court justified its ruling by saying that the previous state rulings did not matter because times had changed and that free states had obstructed the return of fugitive slaves, these states had refused to recognize the law of slave states.[3] This ruling was significant because it led to Dred Scott’s appeal to the United States Supreme Court. It also showed the hostility that people from slave states had towards people from free states, whom they saw as meddling in affairs that did not concern them.

Related Events:

1850: Fugitive Slave Law 1857: Dred Scott v. Sandford Decision

Sources:

[1] F.H. Hodder, “Some Phases of the Dred Scott Case,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 16, 1, (June, 1929), 6 [JSTOR: Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-391X%28192906%2916%3A1%3C3%3ASPOTDS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8. Accessed 18 November 2006].

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.


1853: New Orleans Yellow Fever Epidemic

From Bensonwiki

In New Orleans during the summer of 1853 Yellow Fever took the life of 7849 people with nearly five times that many being stricken with the disease. This is the culmination of what had been a significant problem in New Orleans for many years and for many years afterward until the city made strides toward the institution of public health measures. Yellow Fever is characterized by fever like symptoms followed by hemorrhaging from open sores, vomiting and often a yellowing of the skin, thus giving it its name. The 1853 epidemic and its companion epidemics of the early 1850s are traced to the heaviest period of immigration and because the victims of the disease tended to be immigrants it became known as the “strangers” disease.1 Because of Yellow Fever’s association with immigrants the feeling of the ruling class of New Orleans was to leave the disease where it was, however, as a measure of public health the Louisiana Board of Health was established in 1855 but was largely ineffective for many years. In general, the reaction was a compassionate indifference by all but the most devout or caring individuals until the epidemic of 1878 reached into the houses of the affluent forcing an outcry that lead to the development of proper sewage and plumbing innovation. Also, with the postwar construction of railroads Yellow Fever spread throughout the Mississippi delta from the nexus of New Orleans blighting the area for many years.2

Related Events

1878: Epidemic of 1878

Sources

1. John H. Ellis, Yellow Fever and Public Health in the New South, (Lexington, University Press of Kentucky, 1992) 31 2. Ibid., 31-39; New Orleans Public Library Louisiana Division <http://nutrias.org/facts/feverdeaths.htm&gt; [accessed 9 Novemeber 2006]


1853: Anti-Catholic Riots

From Bensonwiki

On December 25th 1853, while Cajetan Bedini an archbishop in the Catholic Church was performing mass in Cincinnati a group of German Protestants paraded through the street intent on burning and effigy of the archbishop in protest. The police broke up the demonstration without provocation and so ensued a riot on the issue of anti-Catholic hostility. Bedini was also met with violence in other cities; of import to us is Baltimore and St. Louis where similar incidents to this one took place. This violence coincides with the rise of the Know Nothing Party founded in 1852 which professed a distinct hatred for all things Catholic due to their anti-immigrant stance and that the great percentage of immigrants during this period were Irish Catholic. Bedini was in the United States on a visit to check on the state of the Church and to pay a goodwill message to the President. It was while he was on his perusal of the Church corporate in Cincinnati that this demonstration took place and this should be understood as the first flexing of Know-Nothing muscle, which would be shown to be a clear party, capable of commanding many votes, in the upcoming elections of 1854 when the Know Nothing party swept a good amount of the Northern, immigrant heavy, coastal states. It is important to note that this Anti-Catholic sentiment serves to shift the political situation of the United States from the issue that had been at hand, Slavery.1

Related Events

1855: Nativist Riots

Sources

1. Peter Condon, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII, Know Nothingism, <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08677a.htm&gt; [accessed 11 November 2006]; Peter Condon , The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II Cajetan Bedini, <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02387a.htm&gt; [accessed 11 November 2006]; New York, New York, New York Daily Times, 31 December 1853 <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=9&did=75436179&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1163755435&clientId=43093&gt;


1853: Flush Times of Alabama and Mississippi Published

From Bensonwiki

The Flush Times of Alabama and Mississippi written by Joseph Glover Baldwin as a series of articles published in the periodical the Southern Literary Messenger. The gist behind the narrative is an humorous exposition of the skullduggery and outlandishness of the old Southwest especially as it pertains to the courts. This type of writing is distinctly bound to the local circumstances of Alabama and Mississippi of the late 1830’s and Baldwin’s work stands as a shining light into this genre of literature. The story follows the history of the courts through the eyes of Ovid Bolus attorney at law and liar extraordinaire and outlines in some sense the gumption it requires to become successful in this chaotic land. It paints the picture of disadvantaged Indians and humorously greedy pre-emption frontiersmen coming into conflict over the land that each group makes claim to. Alabama and Mississippi in this period are shown to be rough and rowdy place populated by peculiar characters of which the prominent figures are possessed of a certain gumption, which makes them capable of taking full advantage of their circumstances. Another important element in this literature is the unrelenting quest for gains, the drive to make oneself out of nothing, a telling reflection of the values of the period. The work should be evaluated as one of the chief examples of literature of this period and is a valuable reflection on this period. Ultimately, this work and a few others are a basis for understanding the old southwest.1

Related Events

Sources

1. Rhoda Coleman Ellison, Early Alabama Publications, (Birmingham University of Alabama Press, 1947) 167-169; Writers' Program of Alabama, Alabama A Guide to the Deep South, (New York Richard R. Smith, 1941) 131


1853: Treaty with Southern Plains Indians

From Bensonwiki

The treaty with the Southern Plains Indians or the Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, signed on July 27, 1853 is an agreement that in return for a halting of encroachment and monetary subsidization the tribes mentioned would cease hostilities toward white settlers and cease raids into Mexican territory. The hostilities that mandated a treaty such as this stem from two systemic problems left over from the earlier conflict with Mexico. One of the provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was that the United States was liable for any damages perpetrated by Native American raids originating in the United States. The second problem meant to be addressed by this treaty was the alleviation of pressures from Texas to remove the Native American threat so Texas could be properly colonized. The treaty was negotiated by Thomas Fitzpatrick, Indian liaison and the heads of each tribe but was largely ineffective because the heads of the tribes were not able to corral the insular communities of Native Americans from raiding Mexico as well as continuing to raid Texan settlements. This combined with the settler’s penchant for encroaching on Native American lands served to bring the situation to a point of conflict and many of the tribes turned to the Confederacy during the Civil War, which resulted in wholesale disenfranchisement by the Union when the Civil War was over. This disenfranchisement manifested itself in a treaty signed in October of 1865, which placed them on very small reservations in Oklahoma.1

Related Events

1865: Treaty with Plains Indians 1877: Surrender of Plains Indians

Sources

1. William T. Hagan, American Indians (Chicago and London University of Chicago Press, 1941) 94-108; Thomas Fitzpatrick Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache (27 July, 1853) in Charles J. Kapler LL. M. Indian Affairs : Laws and Treaties Volume II (Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1904) <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/ntreaty/cokiap53.htm&gt; [accessed 16 November 2006]


1855: Kansas Pro-slavery Legislature elected

From Bensonwiki

On March 30th 1855, in Lawrence, Kansas, a proslavery legislature was elected to “create the laws by which it would be governed by and might, in time, become a state.”[1] Since the Kansas territory was open for settlement according to popular sovereignty addressed in Stephen Douglas’ Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, it was critical for both sides, pro-slavery and free soilers to get as many voters to the polls as possible. The success of the election for the pro-slavery partisans was a result of D.R. Atchison’s plea to the Missouri proslavery settlers to cross the Missouri/ Nebraska border and vote. [2] The illegal voters, or “border ruffians,” claimed that they were inhabitants of the Kansas territory, yet merely spent the night along the border and cast their votes on the following day, (March 30th) with small weapons and threatened acts of violence. [3] As a result, three free soilers and thirty-six proslavery legislators were elected, clearly supporting the establishment of a proslavery legislature. [4] The New England Aid Emigrant Society had also encouraged free soilers to settle and vote in Kansas, but many of them did not make it to the polls on time, even though they probably would not have made a difference because of the large numbers of “border ruffians.” [5] Not surprisingly, the free soilers did not accept or respect the newly appointed proslavery legislature and as a result, in September of the same year, they gathered in Big Springs to establish a legislature of their own.


Related Events: 1854: Kansas-Nebraska Act; 1855: Big Springs Conference;1856: Sumner Caning 1855: Wakarusa War



Footnotes: [1] Alice Nichols,Bleeding Kansas, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), 26 [2] Ibid., 23-30. [3] Boston, Massachusetts, "Liberator," 27 April 1857. (American Periodical Series Online) [4] Nichols, Bleeding, 28. [5] Nichols, Bleeding, 23-56



Sources: [1] Alice Nichols, Bleeding Kansas, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), 23-56 [2] Boston, Massachusetts, Liberator, 27 April 1857. (American Periodical Series Online) [3] James A. Rawley, Race and Politics; "Bleeding Kansas," and the Coming of the Civil War, (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1969) [4]New York, New York, New York Daily Times, 17 September 1856.


1855: Bleeding Kansas Violence

From Bensonwiki

The strife and struggles of Kansas in 1855 began in 1854 with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, stating that both Kansas and Nebraska were to be settled under popular sovereignty. Of course there were two different sides to this Kansas question. Missourians greatly desired Kansas’ admission into the Union as a slave state, so “border Ruffians” induced physical violence and intimidation in Kansas in order to vote proslavery in the legislative elections. [1] Yet there was certainly opposition to this argument as well. A man by the name of Eli Thayer formed an organization called the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company (later called New England Emigrant Aid Company) which encouraged immigrants to move out to western territory in order to settle Kansas as a free state. Along with the immigrants, Sharp’s rifles were also sent to Kansas under the disguise of “books” in order to effectively arm free state supporters. The Sharp rife was a “new invention and very effective.” [2] The aid society especially felt the need to arm free state supporters in Kansas since a proslavery territorial legislature had been elected on March 30, 1855. [3] The examples of the Sharp’s rifles and “border Ruffians” ably depict the sentiment in Kansas during this time. The Wakarusa War (December 1855) demonstrates the extreme proslavery/free state tension within the territory. From 1854 until 1856, Kansas underwent extreme violence, but it was not only physical, but ideological as well. There were two factions in the territory and both refused to give up their causes—only foreshadowing more controversy on the slave issue to come.



Related Events: 1854:Kansas-Nebraska Act, 1855: Kansas Pro-slavery Legislature elected, Big Springs Conference, 1855: Know-Nothing/Nativist Riot, 1856: Sumner Caning



Footnotes: [1] New York, New York, New York Daily Times(1851-1857), 17 September 1856. [2] W.H. Isely, "The Sharps Rifle Episode in Kansas History,", The American Historical Review, 12, (April 1907), 546-566. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28190704%2912%3A3%3C546%3ATSREIK%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R] [3] Boston,Massachusetts, Liberator (1831-1865), 27 April 1855 (American Periodical Series Online)


1855:Know-Nothing/Nativist Riot

From Bensonwiki

On August 6, 1855, in Louisville, Kentucky a violent riot took place as a result of the governor’s election in which a Know Nothing candidate was running. The conflict was between the Know Nothing party and the Catholics or anti-Nativists. Because the Know Nothing party disagreed with naturalized citizens’ right to vote, they subjected the Catholics to violence and attempted to prevent them from voting. As a result, twenty-two people were killed, many were injured and a great amount of property was damaged. The Louisville riot is just one of many examples of random acts of violence that took place in the year 1855. [1] This riot is significant not only because of its worth as evidence of the Know Nothing party’s view on foreigners, but it also sheds light on the Nativist movement in the 1840’s and 1850’s and how Americans, specifically, Know Nothings, responded to it. [2] The Know Nothing party’s main platform or belief was that foreigners should not be given the vote until after 21 years of residence in the United States; they wanted to rid the United States of naturalized citizens who they deemed incapable of understanding American politics. Much of this resentment came from the extreme increase in foreign population in the United States. In late 1853, the Know Nothing or American party began to rise up with their nativist agenda and remained very popular until about 1856. [3]



Related Events: 1855: Kansas Pro-slavery Legislature elected, 1855: Big Springs Conference



Footnotes: [1] New York, New York, New York Daily Times (1851-1857), August 1855; N.S. Shaler, American Commonwealths-Kentucky, (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1885, 219; New York, New York, New York Daily Times (1851-1857) 10 October 1855. [2] Raymond L. Cohn, "Nativism and the End of the Mass Migration of the 1840's and 1850's," The Journal of Southern History, 60 (June 2000), 361-383; Washington, D.C., National Era (1847-1860), 30 August 1855. [3] Ibid., 361-383


1855: Big Springs Conference

From Bensonwiki

On September 5, 1855, one hundred free soil delegates gathered in Big Springs, Kansas to discuss the establishment of their own legislature in the Kansas territory. These men were not advocates of abolition, yet they supported the containment of slavery. They did not openly disapprove of the institution of slavery, but they wanted to prevent its expansion into the West. Basically, they had “no desire to compete with large holdings using slave labor” since many of them worked on their land by themselves. Slavery would indeed create a great threat for these free soilers who worked independently on their farms. [1] The convention of Big Springs officially created the Free-State party, it adopted resolutions of its party, nominated a delegate to Congress (Andrew H. Reeder) and it even scheduled a later meeting in Topeka in order to discuss a possible state constitution. [2] On October 23rd, free soilers reconvened for the writing of the Topeka Constitution which prohibited slavery after July 4, 1857. The constitution was adopted with great support by free soilers, but only two days later, the pro-slavery supporters convened in order to denounce the Free State party and its convention, claiming that those who disobeyed the laws of the proslavery legislature would be “guilty of treason against the state.” [3] Because of this convention at Leavenworth, a Law and Order Party was established with Governor Shannon as president. Clearly tensions were rising and the ideological struggles of “Bleeding Kansas” would lead to even more violence.



Related Events: 1854: Kansas-Nebraska Act; 1855: Kansas Pro-slavery Legislature elected; 1855: Bleeding Kansas Violence; 1856: Sumner Caning



Footnotes: [1] Alice Nichols, Bleeding Kansas, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954) [2] James A. Rawley, Race and Politics; "Bleeding Kansas," and the Coming of the Civil War, (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1969) [3] Ibid.,



Sources: [1] Alice Nichols, Bleeding Kansas, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954) [2]James A. Rawley, Race and Politics; "Bleeding Kansas," and the Coming of the Civil War, (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1969) [3] New York, New York; New York Daily Times, 10 October 1855.


1856:Sumner Caning

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 18/19 May 1856, Freesoil Senator Charles Sumner spoke to the Senate about the "Crime Against Kansas." He indicted President Pierce for the violence, electoral fraud, and loss of basic American liberties that plagued the territory. The speech also derided senators Stephen A. Douglas and A. Pickens Butler, and defamed South Carolina for lacking civilization. Outraged by Sumner's speech, Butler's cousin, Congressman Preston Brooks, attacked Sumner in the Senate chamber with a cane, declaring "you have libeled my State and slandered a relative who is aged and absent, and I am come to punish you for it." Struck thirty times, Sumner crumpled to a bloody heap on the Senate floor.

The incident shattered the truce that had existed between North and South. The new Republican party used the caning to seize dominance from their Know-Nothing and Democratic rivals. Northern mass meetings condemned "Bully Brooks" for assaulting free speech and for resorting to violence instead of persuasion. Southerners showered Brooks with congratulatory letters and canes to replace the one he had broken in the assault. College students held rallies and lauding the chastisement. Editors urged the Congressman to "hit him again!" The incident incited new debates on key issues, including slavery and abolition, personal liberty laws and state rights, "Bleeding Kansas" and territorial expansion, ideals of gender and manhood, competing visions of labor and the economic order, and the revolutionary shift from the Whig-based "second party system" to its Republican-dominated "third party system" successor.

(For reference, this entry is 243 words long. You will not need to include a word count in your own entries but you will need to closely adhere to the upper word limit.)


Related Events:

1854:Nebraska Bill 1855:Kansas Territorial Government Established 1856:Republican Party Electoral Successes 1865: Reconstruction Begins 1875:Civil Rights Bill

Sources:

Congressional Globe 34th Congress, 1st Session, (1856). Lloyd Benson, The Caning of Senator Sumner (Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth, 2004). William E. Gienapp, "The Crime Against Sumner: The Caning of Charles Sumner and the Breakdown of Antebellum Political Culture," Civil War History 25 (1979), 218-245. [Secession Era Editorials Project (http://history.furman.edu/editorials/see.py)]


1856: Sumner Caning and "The Crime Against Kansas"

From Bensonwiki

Description

Following Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner’s impassioned speech, “The Crime against Kansas,” South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks beat him over the head as many as thirty times with a cane as retaliation. “The Crime against Kansas,” delivered on May 19, 1856, was full of allusions to the rule of Sicily by the crooked Roman governor Verres and Cicero. He used “metaphors of lust, rape and virginity” [1] to describe the way Southerners were treating Kansas and the new territories. This allusion was the only way for him to relate the manner of governance in Kansas to the rape of an innocent woman in Congress without being too obscene. He included numerous personal insults to other Senate members that were blatantly obvious including Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina, whom he compared to Don Quixote. Sumner described Andrew Butler as misguided in his intentions of how to govern Kansas and associated him in “acts of indecency.” [2] Others that were personally insulted included Senators Stephan Douglas, Lewis Cass and James Mason. However, only Representative Preston Brooks, the nephew of Senator Andrew Butler acted in defense of his uncle’s honor. As a result of the “caning,” Sumner suffered from head injuries and personal injury. He later stated that the speech was meant to generate “sectional animosity.” [3] The response to the caning varied from region to region and from party to party. Most Southerners and Democrats did not agree with the actual violent response of Representative Brooks, but did seem to think that Sumner was asking for a like response. [4]


Sources

[1] Pierson, Michael D. “’All Southern Society Is Assailed by the Foulest Charges’: Charles Sumner’s ‘The Crime against Kansas’ and the Escalation of Republican Anti-Slavery Rhetoric.” The New England Quarterly. Vol. 68, No. 4, (Dec, 1995), pp. 545 (531-557). [JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0028-4866%28199512%2968%3A4%3C531%3A%22SSIAB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H Accessed November 2006]; [2] Ibid 549 [3] Ibid 556 [4] "Assault upon Mr. Sumner." New Hampshire Patriot.(28 May 1856)[1] (http://history.furman.edu/editorials/see.py?sequence=sumenu&location=Sumner%20Caning&ecode=nhpasu560528a)


Related Events

1854: Nebraska Bill, 1855: Kansas Territorial Government Established, 1855: Bleeding Kansas Violence, 1855: Kansas Pro-slavery government,1856: Sumner Caning,1856: Republican Party Electoral Successes, 1865:Reconstruction Begins, 1875: Civil Rights Bill


1856: Birth of Booker T. Washington

From Bensonwiki

Description

The date of Booker T. Washington’s birth is slightly contested. In his autobiography, Washington claims that he was born between 1858 and 1859 into slavery in Virginia. [1] However, other historians have dated his birth to 1856 to 1859. [2] In 1863, Washington and his mother, brother and sister moved to West Virginia where he worked in the mines. He then served as a houseboy for a Mrs. Viola Ruffner until he entered the Hampton Institute. Washington developed a strong relationship with the headmaster Samuel C. Armstrong which would impact his attitude on life greatly. After graduation, Washington began teaching and, upon the recommendation of General Armstrong, he was asked to start a school in Tuskegee, Alabama, which would become Tuskegee Institute in 1881. Washington advocated vocational education for blacks and believed heavily in the principles of self-help, self-reliance, thrift, hard work and industry. His beliefs caused dissention among the blacks of the day who saw him as an Uncle Tom figure, not really fighting for equality. [2] However, Washington made numerous advances for blacks in education that would not have been achieved without him and led to further equality. [3]


Sources

[1] Washington, Booker T. Up from Slavery. New York: Double Day and Co., 1901. [1] (http://docsouth.unc.edu/washington/washing.html); [2] Flynn, John P. “Booker T. Washington: Uncle Tom or Wooden Horse.” The Journal of Negro History. Vol. 54, No. 3, (Jul, 1969), pp. 262 (262-274). [JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2992%28196907%2954%3A3%3C262%3ABTWUTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B Accessed November 2006]; [3] Ibid 262-274


Related Events

http://facweb.furman.edu/~corth/wiki/mediawiki-1.3.9/index.php?title=1880:_Lewis_Adams_Sows_Seed_for_Tuskegee_Institute


1856: Presidential Election of 1856

From Bensonwiki

Description

In 1856, Franklin Pierce was president of the United States. He had just passed the Guano Islands Act of 1856 through Congress, beginning the United States’ first overseas empire. In an attempt to gain support from Congress, he agreed to back the Kansas-Nebraska Act therefore rejecting the terms of the Missouri Compromise, but the violence in Kansas proved unpopular and he lost the Democratic nomination to run again. Instead the party rallied behind James Buchanan, a lifetime politician from Pennsylvania. [1] The Republicans nominated John C. Fremont, while the Know-Nothing party nominated former president Millard Fillmore. In the Deep South, the race was between Buchanan and Fillmore. In fact, Fremont did not even appear on the ballot as a result of the Republican stance on the spread of slavery. The race was more open in the North though. Following the election of November 4, 1856, Buchanan won all of the slave states but Maryland, and Fremont won eleven of the sixteen “free” states. The Democrats unified support of their candidate resulted in their ultimate victory. The party stated that the time of unrest in 1856 was over as the democrats brought a “new capacity for healthful enjoyment of the real blessings.” [2] [3]


Sources

[1] “The Convention – The Candidates.” The United States Democratic Review. July, 1856, pp. 521-531. [2] “The Verdict of the People of the United States.” The United States Democratic Review. Dec, 1856, pp. 345-358.; [3] Finkelman, Paul. “Presidency.” The Encyclopedia of the United States in the 19th Century. Vol. 2, Ed. Paul Finkelman. New York: Charles Schribner’s sons, 2001. pp.567-570.; “Life of Buchanan.” The United States Democratic Review. Aug, 1856, pp. 64-70.;


Related Events

1854: Nebraska Bill, 1855: Kansas Territorial Government Established, 1856: Violence in Kansas


1856: Slave Insurrection Panic of 1856

From Bensonwiki

Description

In September of 1856, several slave insurrection plots were reported across the state of Texas. Over the next few months, a fervor of panic spread across the South from Texas to Tennessee to Georgia and even as far north as Virginia. The most intense phase of the panic took place along the Cumberland River in northern Tennessee and southern Kentucky in October and November of 1856. In this region, eight to ten thousand slaves worked in the iron works. The congregation, close proximity and the large number of slaves greatly concerned the whites in the area for a long time. In addition, the area was near free territory and had overcome such a panic in 1835. [1] With the news of slave insurrections elsewhere, a great wave of panic swept over the communities. To avoid insurrection, the whites became proactive forming “Vigilant Patrols” to watch over the slave populations and to look into possible conspiracies and even began to strike first, beating slaves until they confessed to plots of revolt, making the validity of these confessions questionable. [2] Most of the “uncovered plots” were to strike against the whites on Election Day where the slaves would kill the women and children while the men voted or on Christmas day where the slaves would kill the white men and children and take the women as wives. This theory was probably the result of the white man’s fear of the slave men’s sexual behaviors with white women. [3] The whites armed themselves and prepared for their defense. When no rebellion occurred, the whites seemed to calm down with the arrival of 1857 as the immediate threats passed by.


Sources

[1] Dew, Charles B. “Black Ironworkers and the Slave Insurrection Panic of 1856.” The Journal of Southern History. Vol. 41, No. 3, (Aug 1975), pp. 325 (321-338).; [2] Wish, Harvey. “The Slave Insurrection Panic of 1856.” The Journal of Southern History. Vol. 5, No. 2, (May, 1939), pp. 206-222. [JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28193905%295%3A2%3C206%3ATSIPOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 Accessed November 2006]; [3] Dew, Charles B. “Black Ironworkers and the Slave Insurrection Panic of 1856.” 330[JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28197508%2941%3A3%3C321%3ABIATSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F Accessed November 2006]; “The Slave Troubles in the South.” New York Daily Times (1851-1857); Dec 18, 1856; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851-2003) pp. 8.


Related Events

1831: Nat Turner Rebellion


1856: Violence in Kansas

From Bensonwiki

Description

Following the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which allowed for popular sovereignty regarding the issue of slavery in the western territories, a bloody “war” broke out in the Kansas territory between the abolitionists and the pro-slavery settlers in the area over the governance of the area. The distrust amongst the settlers led them to arm themselves with weapons such as rifles. [1] This distrust finally reached the breaking point on May 21, 1856 when a large group of pro-slavery settlers gathered to sack the town of Lawrence, KS, a location chosen because it was the home of free-soiler leader Charles Robinson. They destroyed the town and burned down the Robinson house. A few days later, John Brown and several other abolitionists murdered five pro-slavery men at Pottawatomie Creek. Brown led forces against the pro-slavery Missourians until he was captured in August of 1856. The tensions then seemed to cool down up until the elections of that year. However, “Bleeding Kansas destroyed popular sovereignty, deepened distrust of the federal government in both the North and the South, breathed new life into the Republican Party, strengthened the secessionist appeals, and foreshadowed the Civil War.” [2] The Civil War would soon follow over some of the same issues in an even more gruesome and violent manner. [3]

Sources

[1]Isley, W.H. “The Sharps Rifle Episode in Kansas History.” The American Historical Review. Vol. 12, No. 3, (Apr, 1907), pp. 548 (546-566) [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici=00-2-8762%28190704%2912%3A3%3C546%3ATSREIK%E2.0.CO%3B2-R Accessed November 2006] ; [2] McGlone, Robert. “Bleeding Kansas.” The Encyclopedia of the United States in the 19th Century. Vol. 1, Ed. Paul Finkelman. New York: Charles Schribner’s sons, 2001. pp. 150.; [3]Ibid 150 ; Finkelman, Paul. “Kansas-Nebraska Act.” The Encyclopedia of the United States in the 19th Century. Vol. 2, Ed. Paul Finkelman. New York: Charles Schribner’s sons, 2001. pp 149-150.


Related Events

1854: Nebraska Bill, 1855: Kansas Territorial Government Established, 1855:Bleeding Kansas Violence


1856: Sigma Alpha Epsilon Started

From Bensonwiki

Description

On March 9, 1856, Noble Leslie DeVotie founded one of America’s oldest national fraternities, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa. The vision of SAE was conceived one day in 1855 as DeVotie and his friends walked along the banks of the Black Warrior River that ran near the university. There would be eight members in the first class, five seniors and three juniors. Their names were Noble Leslie DeVotie, Nathan Elams Cockrell, John Webb Kerr, John Barratt Rudolph, Samuel Marion Dennis, Wade H. Foster, Thomas Chappell Cook, and Abner Edwin Patton. They met at a schoolhouse on a cool and stormy March evening and began to put into words the fraternity that they all so desperately desired. Even though it was Nobel’s ideas that started the fraternity, they decided to elect Abner Edwin Patton as the first president and John Webb Kerr was elected as secretary. Little did they know that this fraternity would flourish throughout history. SAE would be the only southern fraternity to survive the Civil War, and it would continue to grow until it became the largest national fraternity in the world, to date with over 280,000 initiated members.

Related Events

1853: Noble Leslie DeVotie Enters Alabama 1868: SAE Started at Furman University 1916: Levere Publishes the History of Sigma Alpha Epsilon 1938: First Edition of the Phoenix Published

Sources

Joseph W. Walt, The Phoenix: The Manual of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, 10th Edition, (Waukegan, Illinois: Lake County Press, Inc., 2005), 194-199. Sigma Alpha Epsilon, "Facts and History," <http://www.sae.net/index.asp?r=fraternity&sr=facts&ssr=facts&gt; [accessed on November 13, 2006].


1857: Dred Scott v. Sandford Decision

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On March 6, 1857, after eleven years in the US court system, the Supreme Court under Justice Roger B. Taney ruled by a vote of seven to two that Dred Scott and all slaves were not United States citizens[1] under the assumption that the founding fathers had viewed blacks as inferior[2]. The decision also established judicial review, as the decision overthrew the Missouri Compromise of 1820[3] which had given Congress jurisdiction to prohibit slavery in federal territories[4]. Slavery now legally could expand[5]. Surprisingly, no violence or upheavals resulted from the verdict[6] and the case was not a critical event that year[7].

Though intended to bring peace as an ultimatum[8], the decision only caused further tension and division[9]. Northern Republicans and abolitionists were enraged claiming the Court had exercised unconstitutional authority over the other two branches[10] and had no jurisdiction in hearing the case[11]. They argued that constitutionally, slavery was intended to be temporary[12] and the Court’s decision favored the Slave Power Conspiracy[13]. Northern Democrats supported the decision because it rejected blacks as citizens and limited congressional power in the territories[14]. Southerners initially rejoiced with confidence in the decision, as it affirmed slavery[15] constitutionally, but ultimately, most were not secure in the decision as they feared northern abolitionists would more strongly retaliate[16]. Along with the Kansas conflict, the decision contributed to the split in the Democratic Party and growth of the Republican Party[17].


Related Events:

1820: Missouri Compromise; 1850: Fugitive Slave Law; 1854: Kansas-Nebraska Act; 1858: Freeport Doctrine; 1860: Lincoln Nominated; 1860: Lincoln Elected; 1865: Thirteenth Amendment Passed; 1868: Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment


Sources:

[1]Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 2. [2]The Reader's Companion to American History, s.v. "Supreme Court." [3]Fehrenbacher, Dred Scott, 4. [4]Ibid., 2. [5]Ibid., 3. [6]Ibid., 449. [7]Kenneth M. Stampp, America in 1857, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 109. [8]Fehrenbacher, Dred Scott, 3. [9]Encyclopedia, s.v. "Supreme Court." [10]Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Daily Tribune, 23 March 1857. [11]Tribune, 5 May 1857. [12]Stampp, America, 105. [13]Ibid., 109. [14]Ibid., 102. [15]Ibid., 100. [16]Fehrenbacher, Dred Scott, 449. [17]Ibid., 563.


1857: Publishing of The Impending Crisis of the South and How to Meet It

From Bensonwiki

Description:

Published in June 1857 by a northern printing house, this book by Hinton Rowan Helper of North Carolina argued that slavery was hindering Southern progress economically and culturally rather than helping it[1]. The book contains statistics and facts[2] evidencing Southern inferiority to the North in commerce, manufacturing, agriculture and land value, as an acre of land in the North was worth five times more than an acre in the South. By abolishing slavery, land prices would increase and the profit would compensate for the loss of slaves[3] and the South would no longer be limited to agriculture[4]. Helper ultimately advocates colonizing the slaves in Liberia or Latin America, an endeavor that slaveholders would fund through taxation[5]. The book suggests taking action only in the polls, not through insurrection or violence[6]. The book highlighted the material and social rather than political implications of slavery[7]. Its publication invoked fear and anger in white southerners as Helper, a southerner himself, claimed that the South would remain ignorant and backward if slavery persisted[8]. In defense, the amount of racist propaganda from slaveholders greatly increased, often with radical ideas like reopening the slave trade[9]. The book also increased Southern vulnerability by persuading non-slaveholders, especially southerners, to reject slavery. The Republican Party later distributed an abridged version of the book called a Compend as propaganda for the election of 1860[10], greatly angering the Democrats[11].


Related Events:

1860: Lincoln Nominated; 1860: Lincoln Elected


Sources:

[1]Kenneth M. Stampp, America in 1857, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 140. [2]Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Press and Tribune, 27 July 1859. [3]Stampp, America, 140. [4]Press and Tribune, 27 July 1859. [5]Stampp, America, 140. [6]Press and Tribune, 8 December 1859. [7]Press and Tribune, 27 July 1859. [8]Elbert B. Smith, The Death of Slavery, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967), 154. [9]Ibid., 155. [10]Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: It's Significance in American Law and Politics, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 527. [11]Press and Tribune, 8 December 1859.


1857: Panic of 1857

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On August 24, 1857, panic occurred with the failure of the New York branch of the Ohio Life and Trust Company[1] after misusing notes and bills of The Merchants Bank of Cleveland[2]. Stocks quickly fell as word of bank instability spread through the new invention of the telegraph. Though banks began to limit transactions[3], increasingly more failed and bank distrust intensified[4]. By mid October, the panic reached its climax as banking was suspended in New York and New England and effects of the panic had spread across the nation. Within a few months, after effects reached Europe, South America, and the Far East, it became the first global economic crisis. The United States experienced significant job loss and a decrease in capital investment, commerce, and immigration lasting eighteen months[5].

Causes for the panic were attributed to excessive imports, foreign debts, stock speculation, loans made with security in stocks and bonds, and particularly investment in railroads[6]. The US relied too heavily on bonds to fund railroads, built the railroads too quickly, and underestimated maintenance expenses[7].

Southerners blamed the panic and recession on irresponsible northern over-spending. Cotton and tobacco prices dramatically decreased[8], but as northerners still experienced recession, southern crop prices rose and even improved after 12 months giving southerners proof that their economy was more stable. Proslavery southerners used the panic as a means of justifying slavery as northern workers were largely unemployed[9]. In state elections of 1858, Democrats unsuccessfully connected the panic to Jacksonian anti-bank sentiments to distract from sectional issues.


Related Event:

1857: Failure of New York Branch of Ohio Life and Trust Company; 1858: State elections;

Sources:

[1]The Library of Congress, "The Panic of 1857," <http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/aug24.html&gt; [accessed 24 October 2006] [2]Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Daily Tribune, 3 September 1857. [3]Library, "Panic." [4]"The Panic and Financial Crisis of 1857," Hunt's Merchant Magazine and Commercial Review, 37 (December 1857), 661. [5]Library, "Panic." [6]"Panic," Hunt's, 660. [7]Ibid., 665-666. [8]Kenneth M. Stampp, America in 1857, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 229. [9]Ibid., 230.


1857: Lecompton Constitutional Convention

From Bensonwiki

Description:

In February 1857, Kansas’ pro-slavery legislature decided to take action in making Kansas a state[1]. In electing representatives for a constitutional convention, free-state supporters, representing the majority of Kansas, did not vote and a pro-slavery Democratic delegation was elected[2] by less than ten percent of eligible voters[3]. With opposition from the newly elected anti-slavery Kansas legislature, the convention met at Lecompton on October 19 and drafted a constitution[4]. Though not wholly controversial, article VII legalizing slavery caused dissent[5] because slavery would remain in Kansas whether the constitution was ratified with or without the slavery clause. Kansas Free-State supporters again boycotted voting for the constitution [6] because they had been deprived of their democratic rights to choose leaders by those whom they called tyrants[7]. The territory was in uproar[8]. Though supported by President Buchanan[9], the constitution never passed in the House[10]. Stephen Douglas and fellow supporters of popular sovereignty became the anti-Lecompton Democrats and sided with Republicans thereby causing the constitution to fail[11].

The constitutional controversy centered on key issues of slavery, popular sovereignty, and states’ rights[12]. While Republicans and Northern Democrats were against it[13], the South supported it and saw the constitution as a means to test the Union to see if it would allow another slave state[14]. Douglas’ betrayal of the Democratic Party began an alienation of the South[15]. The constitution ultimately stirred Republicans to a new level of anger and uneasiness, revived the Southern secession movement, and caused a critical split in the Democratic Party[16].


Related Events:

1854: Kansas-Nebraska Act; 1855: Topeka Constitution; 1857: Dred Scott v. Sandford Decision; 1858: The English Compromise; 1858: Leavenworth Constitution; 1858: Freeport Doctrine; 1859: Wyandotte Constitution; 1860: Lincoln Elected; 1861: Kansas becomes a state

Sources:

[1]Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: It's Significance in American Law and Politics, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 458. [2]Kenneth M. Stampp, America in 1857, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 167. [3]Lecompton, Kansas, Quindaro Chindowan: A Free State Paper, 13 February 1858 <http://www.kckcc.edu/territorial_news/quindaro_chindowan/articles/issue35/qc35.psp&gt; [accessed 1 November 2006] [4]Fehrenbacher, Dred Scott, 461. [5]Stampp, America, 272. [6]Fehrenbacher, Dred Scott, 462. [7]Quindaro, 24 October 1857 <http://www.kckcc.edu/territorial_news/quindaro_chindowan/articles/issue23/qc23.psp&gt; [accessed 1 November 2006] [8]Quindaro, 23 January 1858 <http://www.kckcc.edu/territorial_news/quindaro_chindowan/articles/issue32/qc32.psp&gt; [accessed 1 November 2006] [9]Fehrenbacher, Dred Scott, 470. [10]Quindaro, 17 April 1858 <http://www.kckcc.edu/territorial_news/quindaro_chindowan/articles/issue44/qc44.psp&gt; [accessed 1 November 2006] [11]Fehrenbacher, Dred Scott, 463. [12]Quindaro, 23 January 1858 [13]Fehrenbacher, Dred Scott, 463. [14]Ibid., 464. [15]Ibid., 466. [16]Ibid., 465.


1858: Lincoln/Douglas Debates

From Bensonwiki

Lasting throughout the late summer and fall of 1858, the Lincoln/Douglas debates were a series of speeches by two up-and-coming political geniuses vying for the Illinois Senator speech. The speeches remained in the national spotlight, especially after the controversy surrounding Lincoln's "House Divided" acceptance speech for the Republican nomination.[1] Both politicians held each other in the highest respect, yet spent numerous speeches attacking the politics of the other.[2] As a Northern Democrat, Douglas took a stance that attempted conciliation and compromise with the South, including a program of state sovereignty for future states to determine the legality of slavery, as he had outlined in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.[3] Lincoln, on the other hand, believed that slavery should never be extended into new territories or states.[4] After the Dred Scott v. Sanford court decision was issued, Douglas attempted to find some middle ground between the two contradictory policies during a speech in Freeport.[5] While his eventual compromise was satisfactory for the voters of Illinois, who reelected him, Douglas refusal to fully accept Dred Scott cost him support in many Southern states.[6]

While the election was merely for the state of Illinois, the issue and newspaper coverage of the debates quickly became a national affair, foreshadowing the presidential election that would occur two years later. The results of the election itself paled in comparison to the words spoken in the speeches, which had profound impacts over the politics of the next several years. Although the Southern states supported Douglas initially through the debates, his refusal to comply with Dred Scott alienated them, costing him the Southern vote when he ran for President two years later.[7] Lincoln's domination of the North allowed him to defeat his fragmented opposition for victory, much of which can be attributed to the political aftereffects of the speech.

Related Events:

Kansas Nebraska Act

1857: Dred Scott v. Sandford Decison

1858: House Divided Speech

Sources:

[1]"Quoting an Opponent Incorrectly." National Era. July 22 1858 Vol XII No. 603 p. 114. (Proquest->APS Online) [2]Heckman, Richard Allen. Lincoln vs. Douglas: The Great Debates Campaign. Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1967. p. 37 [3]Ibid., 5. [4]Ibid., 17. [5]Ibid., 93-94. Also "Can Slavery be Excluded by Territorial Action?" National Era. Sep. 30 1858. p. 154. (Proquest->APS Online) [6]"The Union Exhorts the South Against Douglas." New York Times. September 11 1858 p. 4. (Proquest->NY Times) [7]Heckman, 98-99.

Return to SHDB

Return to 1850-1859 Events


1858: Minnesota gains statehood

From Bensonwiki

Along with Kansas and Oregon, Minnesota was preparing to enter the union in 1858 as a free state.[1] While there was little doubt that Minnesota had planned to become a free state, its admission to the union would add a 6-state advantage of free states over slave states, serving to further ruin sectional relations.[2] Minnesota's true power, if admitted, would be its vote on the deadlocked issue of the Lecompton Constitution. It was Minnesota's importance in relation to the Kansas question rather than any longterm balance issues that that served to be most important at the time, and caused for a delay in Minnesota's admission. It was largely assumed that most Minnesotans supported the President, and would thus vote for Lecompton if admitted.[3] Most of the obstacles for admission were relatively minor, such as insignificant constitutional defects.[4]

Related Issues:

1857: Lecompton Constitutional Convention

Sources:

[1]"The North and South." New York Times. Feb. 1 1858. p. 4 (Proquest->NYTimes) [2]Ibid., 4 [3]"How New States Come In." New York Times. Mar. 1 1858 p. 4 (Proquest->NYTimes) [4]"Admission of Minnesota--is the Legislature Prepetual?" New York Times. May 4 1858. p. 1. (Proquest->NYTimes)

Return to SHDB Return to 1850-1859 Events


1858: House Divided Speech

From Bensonwiki

On June 16 1958, Abraham Lincoln delivered a controversial acceptance speech at the Illinois State Republican Convention after being nominated as the Republican candidate to run for Senator.[1] In this speech, Lincoln made clear his belief that the United States was nearing a crucial decision point in which it must decide to either fully embrace slavery, or to abolish it altogether. because people believed Lincoln to be an abolitionist, the speech was widely controversial as many people interpreted it to mean that Lincoln sought to end slavery altogether throughout the nation. Lincoln's statement, "A House divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this Government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free," was later used against him by his Democratic opponent, Stephen Douglas, and interpreted to insinuate that Lincoln was coaxing the Southern states into starting a "sectional war."[2] Not only was this controversial statement a likely contributing factor to Lincoln's subsequent loss in the Senate race, but his speech drew national media attention, enough that many Southern political leaders began to take careful notice of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps starting the chain that led to Southern secession.[3]

Related Events:

1857: Dred Scott v. Sandford Decision

1854: Kansas-Nebraska Act

1858: Lincoln/Douglas Debates

Sources:

[1]Basler, Roy P.(ed.) The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Vol. II (1848-1858). New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1953. p. 461-5 [2]"Quoting an Opponent Incorrectly." National Era. July 22 1858 Vol XII No. 603 p. 114. (Proquest->APS Online) [3]"The Union Exhorts the South Against Douglas." New York Times. September 11 1858 p. 4. (Proquest->NY Times)


1858: Marais de Cygnes Massacre

From Bensonwiki

In May of 1858, Kansas once more erupted in violence. Since 1854, Kansas had been the site of numerous bloody clashes between proslavery men and freesoilers in response to the passage of the Kansas Nebraska Act, allowing for a popular vote to determine the fate of slavery in the new state. A fraudulent vote resulting in the proslavery LeCompton Constitution was sent to Congress, where it was deadlocked between Republicans and Northern Democrats opposing, while Southern Democrats supported. While the politicians debated, the people themselves often resorted to violence.[1] Often the perpetrators of the Kansas violence were proslavery agitators from the nearby slave state of Missouri, who wished to coerce the state into slavery. However, the violence had mostly subsided after 1856. Then, in May 1858, a Georgian named Charles Hamilton led a gang across the border into Kansas, where they shot and killed a number of innocent freesoil farmers without provocation.[2] Most of the gang managed to escape, as only one was ever captured and sentenced. Newspaper reports often grossly exaggerated the accounts, making the violence seem even more senseless and random than it already was.[3] The significance of this massacre is the gap in time between this massacre and the rest of the violence, showing the depth of the problem being faced: even if the politicians could come to a compromise, the nation had fundamental ideological, cultural, and sectional differences that were not going to go away through legal compromise. This was not a local dispute between Missouri and Kansas, but one that involved the entire nation, drawing violence from as far away as Georgia.

Related Events:

Kansas Nebraska Act 1854

1856: Violence in Kansas

1855: Bleeding Kansas Violence

1857: Lecompton Constitutional Convention

Sources:

[1]Milton, George Fort. "Stephen A. Douglas' Efforts for Peace." The Journal of Southern History. Vol. 1 No. 3 Aug 1935. P. 268-269 (JSTOR) [2]"More Troubles in Kansas." Circular. Jun 10 1858 p. 79 (Proquest->APS Online) [3]"The Late Massacre in Kansas." Liberator. Jun 9 1958 p. 112 (Proquest->APS Online)

Return to SHDB

Return to 1850-1859 Events


1859: Ableman v. Booth

From Bensonwiki

Description:

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 sparked several court cases concerning its enforcement. One of the most famous of these cases, Ableman v. Booth, occurred in 1859. In Wisconsin, Sherman Booth was arrested by Ableman, the U.S. Marshal, for helping Glover, a black man, "to escape from the custody of Deputy United States Marshal Cotton."1 Booth’s actions were in direct violation of the terms of the Fugitive Slave Act. The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted a writ of habeas corpus to Booth, declaring the act to be void because it "[gave] judicial power to commissioners, and further, that it denied a jury trial to the alleged fugitive."2 By the order of U.S. District Judge Miller, Booth was arrested a second time and was denied habeas corpus "on the ground that the federal court had jurisdiction and that the state court would not attempt to prevent the court from trying a pending case."3 Booth was convicted and petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court for habeas corpus. This time it was granted, because the state court said that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over Booth’s offense.4 The cases went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Wisconsin decision was reversed—the court upheld the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This case is important not only for its implications in terms of race relations, but also as a significant blow to state rights. It is also important because the federal government upheld the status of slaves as property in a northern state.

Related Events:

1850: Fugitive Slave Act 1854: Ableman v. Booth incident occurs 1860: South Carolina Secedes

Sources:

1 Helen Tunnicliff Catterall, Judicial Cases Concerning American Slavery and the Negro, Vol. V, (New York: Octagon Books, Inc., 1968), 89.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.


1859: Norton I

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On September 17, 1859, California eccentric Joshua A. Norton declared himself Emperor of the United States. Norton was born on February 4, 1819.1 In 1849, he moved to San Francisco. He was involved in real estate in San Francisco and soon became very wealthy. After his work in this area, he decided to try the rice market. He bought a large amount of rice and, being assured that it would be profitable, expected to make a small fortune. This would not be the case, however. An unexpected shipment of rice arrived, and the price of the product plummeted, leaving Norton in financial ruin.2 This was one of the primary factors contributing to Norton’s growing insanity. Soon after declaring himself Emperor of the United States, Norton began to make proclamations. These included: dismissing the governor of Virginia for hanging John Brown, dissolving the United States, preventing Congress from convening in Washington, D.C., and dissolving both the Democratic and Republican parties.3 The phrase "Protector of Mexico" was added to his title for a while after he was informed that the nation needed a protector.4 Norton was always well dressed, and he used a walking stick made from grapevine as his scepter.5 He had two dogs, Bummer and Lazarus. When Bummer died, Mark Twain wrote an epitaph for him.6 The population of San Francisco generally humored him and found his actions entertaining. On January 8, 1880, Norton dropped dead at the corner of California Street and Grant Avenue.7

Related Events:

2004: Bridge Named After Norton I

Sources

1 Robert Ernest Cowan, "Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico" (October 1923) in http://www.emperornorton.net/NortonI-Cowan.html [accessed 12 November 2006]. Text scanned from Quarterly of the California Historical Society, October 1923.

2 Ibid.

3 San Francisco Museum, "Norton I, Emperor of the United States," http://www.sfmuseum.org/hst1/norton.html [accessed 12 November 2006].

4 Cowan, "Norton I."

5 Ibid.

6 San Francisco Museum, "Norton I."

7 Cowan, "Norton I."


1859: Harpers Ferry

From Bensonwiki

Description:

John Brown was an ardent abolitionist. As a result of the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, Brown became militant in his abolitionist activities.1 Brown moved to Kansas to become involved in abolition there. He participated in the massacre at Pottawatomie Creek in May 1856, which resulted in the deaths of five pro-slavery settlers. In 1857, Brown secretly began to formulate plans to create an abolitionist post in the Appalachian Mountains.2 The funding for Brown’s plans came largely from white abolitionists known as the "Secret Six." He also received funding from free blacks such as Frederick Douglass.3 Douglass’s involvement was discovered in a letter found in Brown’s home.4 On October 16, 1859, Brown put his plan into action at Harper’s Ferry, West Virginia. He and a group of twenty-one men, including three of his sons, attempted to raid the federal arsenal there. On October 18th, Brown and his followers were stopped by Colonel Robert E. Lee and a group of U.S. Marines. The raid killed a total of six people.5 Lee and J.E.B. Stuart captured Brown and the other survivors.6 Brown was tried and convicted in West Virginia and sentenced to hang there on December 2, 1859.7 Brown was viewed as insane by some and as a martyr by others. Regardless of the differing opinions about him, the timing of the raid on Harper’s Ferry is significant as one of the events that drove the United States closer to the Civil War.8

Related Events:

1850: Fugitive Slave Act 1855: Bleeding Kansas Violence 1856: Pottawatomie Creek 1859: John Brown Trial 1859: John Brown Hanged

Sources:

1 Paul Finkelman, ed., Encyclopedia of the United States in the Nineteenth Century, s.v. "Harpers Ferry and John Brown," (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2001), 14.

2 Ibid, 14-15.

3 Ibid, 15.

4 "The Riot at Harper's Ferry," The Independent, 20 October 1859, 11, 568, APS Online.

5 Ibid.

6 Kenneth C. Davis, Don’t Know Much About History, (Perennial, 2001), 162.

7 Finkelman, ed., Encyclopedia, 15.

8 Davis, Don't Know, 163.


1859: John Brown Trial

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On October 25, 1859, John Brown was put on trial for the insurrection at Harper’s Ferry, West Virginia. Brown was a "pitiable sight" when he entered the courtroom—he had "three sword-stabs in his body."1 The charges against Brown were: "1. For conspiring with negroes to produce insurrection. 2. For treason to the Commonwealth. 3. For murder."2 The trial took place in Charlestown, West Virginia. O. J. Faulkner and L. Botts were appointed to the defense.3 The defense tried to convince Brown to enter a plea of insanity, but he refused. Brown had a history of mental illness in his family.4 Closing arguments were made on November 1. The same day, following a half-hour recess, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty on all counts. Brown remained silent and calm while the verdict was read.5 Before sentencing, Brown said to the court, "Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country, whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I submit, so let it be done."6 He was sentenced to hang on December 2, 1859, and the sentence was carried out.7 Brown’s trial was seemingly quick and highly publicized. Its timing was crucial, as it served to make Brown an example to other abolitionists on the eve of the Civil War.

Related Events:

1850: Fugitive Slave Act 1855: Bleeding Kansas Violence 1856: Pottawatomie Creek 1859: Harpers Ferry 1859: John Brown hanged

Sources:

1 "Trial of John Brown," New York Evangelist, 3 November 1859, p. 30, 44, APS Online.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 "The Harper’s Ferry Insurrection," Ohio Farmer, 5 November 1859, p. 8, 45, APS Online.

5 Ibid.

6 "Brown’s Speech to the Court," Christian Observer, 10 November 1859, p. 38, 45, APS Online.

7 Paul Finkelman, ed., Encyclopedia of the United States in the Nineteenth Century, s.v. "Harpers Ferry and John Brown," (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2001), 15.


1859: Origin of Species

From Bensonwiki

Description:

On November 24, 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. The book outlined his theory of evolution. The timing of the publication of Darwin’s book was important, and it had several significant consequences. Even before the publication of On the Origin of Species, scientists sought to prove that blacks were a distinct species. In order to do this, they measured the physical traits of blacks and whites to see how they differed from one another.1 This gave the proslavery argument in the South a scientific basis. Darwin’s book would lend even more scientific credence to this argument during the Civil War. Since Darwin "did not rule out the possibility that through the process of natural selection non-whites fell behind whites in their capacities for survival and progress," his theory did not exclude the idea of white supremacy.2 Studies attempting to prove the superiority of the white race continued and gave new life to the proslavery argument. Southern resistance to changes in the social status of blacks after the war was strengthened.3 Darwin himself believed that blacks were inferior to whites. He did not, however, believe that blacks and whites were descended from different ancestors.4 He felt "that after the human species was dispersed throughout the world, over the ages the different races of man acquired different physical and mental capabilities."5 Darwin’s book and theory would later influence another theory used to prove the supremacy of the white race—Social Darwinism.

Related Events:

1883: Social Darwinism

Sources:

1 Paul Finkelman, ed., Encyclopedia of the United States in the Nineteenth Century, s.v. "Anthropology," (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2001), 96.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 "Blacks Less Likely to Accept Charles Darwin's Dethronement of Mankind," The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 21, (Autumn 1998), 39-40.

5 Ibid, 40.


1859: 'Dixie' song was written

From Bensonwiki

Description

The first use of the word ‘Dixie’ can be traced back to the year 1859 when the ‘Dixie’ song was written by the Northerner Daniel Emmett. He wrote it for the Bryant minstrel show who performed throughout the United States. Emmett suggested the song when he heard the phrase ‘I wish I was in Dixie’ expressed by circus performers. They were complaining about the Northern weather which became too cold for the tent life they followed.1 Even though the Dixie song was written by a Northerner, the North was convinced that it was a Southern song and therefore cancelled all the theater engagements of the Bryant minstrels a week following the assassination of Lincoln.2

During the Civil War, the ‘Dïxie’ song was the popular anthem of the Confederate States and after the war it became the popular anthem of the South.

The origins of the word ‘Dixie’ remain uncertain. According to A Dictionary of Americanisms on Historical Principles, three theories attempt to explain the term:3

  1. Before the Civil War, the Citizens Bank of Louisiana, located in New Orleans, issued ten-dollar notes that bore the Creole/French word dix, ten, on one side. These notes were known as "dixies" and the south came to be known as the "land of dixies."
  2. The term comes from the Dixon in "Mason-Dixon line," the famous pre-Revolutionary War surveyors' line that separated Maryland and Pennsylvania.
  3. It comes from "Dixy's land," Dixy supposedly being a kindly slave owner on Manhattan island, Dixy's regime was supposedly so enlightened that for slaves his plantation came to symbolize earthly paradise.

The Mason-Dixon theory is the most popularly known.

Related events

1861: Confederate States of America formed

Sources

1 “Origin of ‘Dixie’s land”, The Washington Post, 14 October 1900

2 J. Frise Richards, “’Dixie’ was adopted”, The Washington Post, 8 February 1909

3 Mitford M. Mathews, '€'A Dictionary of Americanisms on Historical Principles, 1951


1860: South Carolina Secedes

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description

On December 20, 1860 at one o’clock South Carolina passed an ordinance of secession by an unanimous decision. This decision was “greeted with the salvo of a hundred guns”. 1 Secession had been a prevailing ideology in South Carolina since John C. Calhoun in his South Carolina Exposition and Protest (1828) had originated the idea of a state’s right of nullification. The election of Abraham Lincoln proved to be the final straw for South Carolina secessionists. According to the secessionists, South Carolina was in a mutual constitutional compact with the rest of the Union. Due to the fourteen non-slaveholding states’ noncompliance with the Fugitive Slave Law, this compact had been broken, and South Carolina had the right to separate and become a free sovereign state. Furthermore, Abraham Lincoln would seek abolition of all slaves in the South which could not be tolerated since it was an attack on the South to end their distinct way of life and free their property, the slaves. “The fear-of-insurrection-abolition-syndrome was the core of the secession persuasion, not its vehicle.” 2 South Carolina secessionists used this fear of the blacks as the incendiary tool to stoke white resentment for the North, Republicans, and abolitionists and stir up white Southern nationalism. If the slaves were freed, two things could occur: a bloody race war or equal status for blacks with whites. These white Southerners would go to war to prevent either one of these events from occurring.

Related Events:

1832: Ordinance of Nullification; 1850: Fugitive Slave Law; 1860: Lincoln Elected; 1860: Democrats Split; 1860: Southern Democrats Nominate Breckinridge; 1860: Jefferson Davis' Senate Resolutions; 1861: Confederate States of America Formed; 1861: Shots Fired on Fort Sumter

Sources:

“The Secession Movement”, New York Times, 21 December 1860. “South Carolina; Decleration of Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify The Secession of South Carolina", New York Times 31 December 1860. Steven A. Channing, Crisis of Fear: Secession in South Carolina (New York City: Simon & Schuster, 1970), 252-293. W.Scott Poole, South Carolina's Civil War, (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2005), 1-22.

Footnotes:

1 "Secession", NY Times, 21 December 1860

2 Channing, Crisis, 265


1860: Lincoln Nominated

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description

On May 18, 1860 the Republican Party delegates at their national convention in Chicago nominated Abraham Lincoln as their party’s candidate for the presidential election while selecting Hannibal Hamlin, a former Democrat, as their vice-presidential candidate. The following day the New York Times reported, “ The youngster who, with ragged trousers, used barefoot to drive his father’s oxen and spend his days in splitting rails, has risen to high eminence...” 1 Lincoln had entered the convention as the underdog to William Seward of New York. Yet he was an ideal candidate for the Republican Party. He staunchly opposed slavery, favored internal economic improvements, garnered support from former Whigs and also condemned the Know Nothing Party. Republicans based their nomination of Lincoln on his popularity in the West and their need to counter Stephen Douglas, one of the Democratic candidates who was especially strong in the Ohio Valley states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky. Lincoln offered them the best hope of taking votes away from Douglas. Yet, Lincoln was a relative unknown to a lot of eastern Republicans. “ The only evidence that he has a history as yet discovered, is that he had a stump canvass with Mr. Douglas, in which he was beaten.” 2 Even though Lincoln lost the Illinois Senatorial election against “Mr. Douglas” his impressive oratory skills and defiant stance against the extension of slavery garnered him wide acclaim across the North. Lincoln’s nomination would lead to the most divisive presidential election in the history of the United States.


Related Events:

1860: Lincoln Elected; 1860: South Carolina Secedes

Sources:

“The Republican Ticket for 1860", New York Times, 19 May 1860. David Herbert Donald, LINCOLN, (New York City: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 246-254. "Lincoln As He Is", New York Times, 26 May 1860.

Footnotes:

1 "Republican", NY Times, 19 May 1860

2 "Republican", NY Times, 19 May 1860


1860: Lincoln Elected

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description

In the presidential election of 1860 Abraham Lincoln prevailed over his challengers Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, Southern Democrat candidate John C. Breckinridge and John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party. Lincoln won with only 39.8 percent of the national vote but seized the day with 180 electoral votes. Lincoln carried all of the free states except New Jersey which he split with Douglas. Douglas was second in total votes but only won Missouri outright. Bell won several of the states of the upper South while Breckinridge carried all of the “Deep South”. “It was ominous that Lincoln and Hamlin received not a single vote in ten of the Southern states.” 1(1) The split of the Democratic Party crushed any chances of defeating Lincoln who had the vast majority of the free states behind him. The election showed the dangerous ideological divisions threatening to tear the country apart. The New York Times detailed the fears of Southern elites, “ This election will inaugurate a marked and most important change in the administration of the Government. The policy of extending Slavery, and increasing its political power, will now be checked. The Slave interest will no longer impose its claims and its law upon the Federal Government.” 2 Southern states, led by South Carolina, seeing that their interests would no longer be protected, decided to secede from the Union believing they needed to protect their constitutional rights and keep Lincoln from taking away their way of life.


Related Events:

1860: Lincoln Nominated; 1860: South Carolina Secedes; 1860: Democrats Split

Sources:

David Herbert Donald, LINCOLN (New York City: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 230-256. "The Election: Lincoln Triumphant", New York Times, 7 November 1860. Phillip Shaw Paludan, The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1994), 3-20.

Footnotes:

1 Donald, LINCOLN, 256

2 "Election", NY Times, 7 November 1860


1860: Democrats Split

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description

“It is confidently expected that whatever the programme may be by which the result is reached, Douglas will be nominated, and that the greater portion of the South will put an opposition ticket in the field.” Thus, the New York Times, five days before the actual occurrence, predicted the inevitable division of the Democratic Party. The Democrats had originally convened in Charleston on April 23rd, but they were forced to adjourn due to arguments regarding the party’s platform. Stephen Douglas, the leading candidate, supported “popular sovereignty”, the people’s right in the territories to choose slavery. When the convention attempted to adopt the idea as part of their platform, nearly fifty Southern delegates walked out in protest. Unable to garner a two thirds majority agreement on any candidate, the delegates agreed to meet again in Baltimore on June 18th. Yet, once together again in Baltimore, the arguments began anew. “This time the questions concerned the readmission of delegates who had seceded at Charleston, the deciding between contesting sets of delegations from the Southern states and the requiring of a pledge that delegates be bound to support the nominee of the convention.” 2 These arguments and the question of the “popular sovereignty” platform led to almost one hundred ten Southern delegates, “fire eaters”, to walk out, form their own convention and elect John.C. Breckinridge as their candidate for president. With a divided Democratic Party, Lincoln faced no staunch challenger to the presidency and his inevitable election would lead states such as South Carolina to seek secession.


Related Events:

1860: Southern Democrats nominate Breckinridge; 1860: Jefferson Davis' Senate Resolutions; 1860: Lincoln Elected


Sources:

" The Baltimore Convention", New York Times, 18 June 1860. Ollinger Crenshaw, The Slave States in the Presidential Election of 1860 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1945), 1-35. Murat Halstead, Three Against Lincoln (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1960), 185-278.

Footnotes:

1 "Baltimore", NY Times, 18 June 1860

2 Crenshaw, Slave, 14


1860: Jefferson Davis' Senate Resolutions

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description

On February 2nd Jefferson Davis submitted seven resolutions on the Relations of the States to the Senate to garner a Senatorial consensus on state’s rights and the federal government’s relationship with the territories and states . After the tumultuous Democratic convention in Charleston in April, Davis pressed the Senate to vote on his resolutions. Davis wished to unite the Democratic Party behind his platform and disavow the “popular sovereignty” platform of Stephen Douglas. The Democrats stood no chance of defeating Lincoln divided, but Davis also believed that Congress and the territorial legislatures had no right to prohibit slavery in the territories. Southerners had the inalienable right to keep their property, the slaves. Davis argued, “if a few Africans.... are to constitute the element which will divide the Democratic party and peril the vast hopes.....I will trust it will be remembered that a few of us have stood by the old landmarks of those who framed the Constitution.” 1 Finally, on May 24th, backed by a majority of the Senate the resolutions passed. Yet the arguments over Douglas’ and Davis’ platform continued to the Democratic Convention in Baltimore and precipitated the split in the party. Even though dismayed, Davis saw the separation as justified: “To admit that our property is not entitled to receive from the General Government.....is to consent to be degraded below our fellows.” 2 After the separation, Davis attempted in vain to find a candidate backed by the whole Democratic Party to defeat Lincoln, who was seen as a threat to the South’s peculiar institution of slavery.


Related Events:

1860: Democrats Split; 1860: Southern Democrats Nominate Breckinridge; 1860: Lincoln Elected; 1860: South Carolina Secedes


Sources:

"Letter from Hon. Jefferson Davis", New York Times, 1 August 1860. Dunbar Rowland, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches Volume IV, (New York City: J.J. Little & Ives Company, 1923), 348-371. Hudson Strode, Jefferson Davis: American Patriot (New York City: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1955), 336-359.

Footnotes:

1 Strode, Jefferson, 353

2 "Letter", NY Times, 1 August 1860


1860: Southern Democrats Nominate Breckinridge

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description

Over the matter of allowing slavery into the territories, the Democratic Party had been torn apart. The “fire-eaters”, who had walked out of the Baltimore Convention, assembled on June 23rd at the Maryland Institute Hall. They adopted a pro-slavery platform, including in which Congress should legislate to protect slavery in the territories and existing slave states, and nominated John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky for President and Joseph Lane of Oregon for Vice President. Even though nominated by the secessionist Democrats, Breckinridge was actually moderate. In his acceptance speech Breckinridge declared, “ And when I discovered, though with regret, that my name had been presented to the country, it did not take me long to determine that I would not meanly abandon those with whom I was determined to act.” 1 Another Southern Democratic convention was held in Richmond on June 26th which consisted mainly of South Carolina delegates. These delegates also ratified the pro-slavery platform and agreed to support the nominations of Breckinridge and Lane. The Breckinridge ticket hoped to have the backing of a unified and defiant South but in reality, the Democratic Party’s own divisions and the political and ideological differences within the Southern slave states prevented this from ever materializing. In the election of 1860 Breckinridge would carry much of the lower South but did no fare well in the upper South and “border states”. Southern moderates, particularly in those states, supported Stephen Douglas or John Bell, the Constitutional Union candidate. These moderates believed that slavery would be safer by staying in the Union than through secession.


Related Events:

1860: Democrats Split; 1860: Lincoln Elected; 1860: Jefferson Davis' Senate Resolutions; 1860: South Carolina Secedes


Sources:

Murat Halstead, Three Against Lincoln, (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1960), 185-278. Ollinger Crenshaw, The Slave States in the Presidential Election of 1860 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1945), 11-58. "The Southern Democracy", New York Times 28 June 1860.

Footnotes:

1 "Southern", NY Times, 28 June 1860


1861: Confederate States of America Formed

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 4 February 1861, in Montgomery, AL, the seceded Southern states held a convention to officially declare their separation from the Union under the name of the Confederate States of America. At this time, not all states had seceded and a similar convention was being held in Washington D.C. in hopes of convincing some of the Border States, such as Virginia, to remain in the Union. [1]

However, at the Southern Convention, the new government had gone ahead and declared Jefferson Davis its president and Alexander H. Stephens its vice president for the next year, as well as to adopt its own constitution. [2]

A large crowd gathered in the streets of Montgomery as Southern leaders declared that they would not allow the Union to disrespect their precious institutions, and that with the formation of the new republic, they were to become a society rivaled by none throughout the world. The Southern leaders believed that distinctly Southern products controlled the commerce of the rest of the world, and that as a result, not only would they be wealthy, but also left alone to their own devices. The Montgomery Convention also established the fact that the South had no intention of being aggressive towards the North. They simply wanted to be left alone, but they stressed the fact that if pushed, they would be more than willing to “repel aggressions” from the North. [3] The Montgomery Convention was important in outlining the South’s position in the inevitable conflict to come. [4]

Related Events:

1860: Lincoln Nominated, 1860: Lincoln Elected, 1860: Jefferson Davis' Senate Resolutions, 1861: Shots Fired on Fort Sumter, 1861: Crittenden-Johnson Resolution

Sources:

[1] New York, New York, New York Times, 4 February 1861.

[2] New York, New York, New York Times, 11 February 1861.

[3] New York, New York, New York Times, 12 February 1861.

[4] Ibid.; New York, New York, New York Times, 18 February 1861.


1861: Shots Fired on Fort Sumter

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 12 April 1861, in Charleston, SC, Confederate forces fired shots on Fort Sumter signifying the start of the Civil War. The Sumter issue began in late 1860 when U.S. Major Robert Anderson stationed his troops from Fort Moultrie at Fort Sumter. This was seen by South Carolina governor Francis Pickens and Col. Johnson Pettigrew as an attempt to reinforce the fort. Pettigrew met with Anderson and demanded that he abandon Sumter and return to Fort Moultrie; however, Anderson refused. Gov. Pickens then ordered military preparations made in Charleston, while continuing to implore Anderson and President Lincoln to abandon Sumter. Yet, in April 1861, the United States attempted to reinforce the fort again. Thus, on April 11, Confederate Brigade General P.G.T. Beauregard sent a final letter to Anderson asking for Sumter’s evacuation, but Anderson refused. So, at 4:30am on April 12, with thousands on hand watching, a thirty-four hour attack began on Fort Sumter. The shooting ended at 2:30pm on April 13 with Anderson’s surrender. [1]

In all, 2,000 shots were fired in the battle; however, no men died during the fighting. The Confederate forces then took the fort after moving Anderson and his men to nearby Morris Island. The significance of the event is that it made military action between the states inevitable. Though the South did not want to attack Sumter, the Union’s refusal to cooperate forced their hand. Similarly, the South’s capture of Fort Sumter would lead the Union to make every effort to reclaim all lost federal property. [2]

Related Events:

1860: South Carolina Secedes, 1861: Confederate States of America Formed, 1861: Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, 1861: Union Blockade of Southern Ports

Sources:

[1] Confederate Military History, "The War Begins! Fort Sumter," <http://www.civilwarhome.com/CMHsumter.htm&gt; [accessed 8 November 2006]; Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Tribune, 13 April 1861.

[2] Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Tribune, 15 April 1861; Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Tribune, 13 April 1861; Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Tribune, 15 April 1861.


1861: Crittenden-Johnson Resolution

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 22/25 July 1861, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution. This was significant, because it pointed out that the Union had no intention of “interfering with the rights” of Southerners by making slavery an issue in the war. Rather, it wanted to “defend the supremacy of the Constitution.” [1] This was important because it was contrary to many Southerners belief that the North intended to impose its way of life on them.

Earlier that month President Lincoln made a formal announcement that he had no intention of removing slavery where it was already established, but that the South’s “secession was unconstitutional” and he intended to reunite them under the cloak of the Union. [2] Therefore Kentucky Congressmen John J. Crittenden and Andrew Johnson of Tennessee proposed a resolution to put Lincoln words to action. It stated that the two objects of the war were “to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired.” [3]

The fact was that slavery was an issue that most Northerners felt was too disruptive, and so the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution was passed almost unanimously in both the House and Senate in hopes that it would help to bring a swift end to the conflict. [4]

Related Events:

1861: Shots Fired on Fort Sumter, 1861: First Battle of Manassas, 1862: Lincoln Announces the Emancipation Proclamation

Sources:

[1] The Library of Congress, "Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Volume 58," <http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=058/llhj058.db&recNum=122&itemLink=r %3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28hj0581%29%29%3A%230580002&linkText=1> [accessed 8 November 2006].

[2] James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 312.

[3] James A. Rawley, Turning Points of the Civil War, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966), 35.

[4] James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 312; The Library of Congress, "Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Volume 58," <http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=058/llhj058.db&recNum=122&itemLink=r %3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28hj0581%29%29%3A%230580002&linkText=1> [accessed 8 November 2006].


1861: First Battle of Manassas

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 21 July 1861, at Manassas Junction, Virginia, the first major battle of the Civil War was fought. The hope of Union General Irvin McDowell was that he could get to Richmond where victory would presumably end the rebellion. [1]

Manassas was located 26 miles southwest of Washington D.C. where the Orange and Alexandra railroads met. This was significant because it was the first time railroads were used in battle. Union commanders had not meant to fight at Manassas; however, when Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston and 6,000 troops arrived by railway to join P.G.T. Beauregard’s 22,000 men, it forced the earlier conflict. The Union’s problem was that it had a field commander in McDowell who was untested and ineffective at commanding his troops, whereas the South had superior leadership from Johnston, Beauregard, and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Initially, the Union appeared to win the battle; however, through the efforts of Jackson and his troops dressed in Union blue, the South was able to force the North into a retreat. [2]

The Confederate victory was called a “disaster” by Northern newspapers, and it had several direct consequences. [3] It forced the Union to reorganize, it led to McDowell’s dismissal and George McClellan’s commissioning, it introduced Negro issues to the conflict, and it caused the Union to lose its stature in Europe. It gave the Confederacy a hero in Jackson, but also made them overly confident. Most importantly though, it forced the Union to recognize that this was a conflict not as easily won as they had believed. [4]

Related Events:

1824: Stonewall Jackson Born, 1861: Shots Fired on Fort Sumter, 1861: Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, 1861: The Trent Affair, 1861: Robert E. Lee Commands Virginia State Forces, 1862: Lincoln Announces the Emancipation Proclamation

Sources:

[1] New York, New York, New York Times, 21 July 1861.

[2] James A. Rawley, Turning Points of the Civil War, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966), 51-55.

[3] Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Tribune, 23 July 1861.

[4] James A. Rawley, Turning Points of the Civil War, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966), 67.


1861: First Income Tax Law

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 5 August 1861, Congress passed a bill imposing a “three per cent per annum” tax on any income above $800. [1] It was passed in combination with another bill that raised tariffs on certain imports like tea and sugar. [2] The hope was to create more national revenue in order to fund not only the war against the Confederacy, but also to maintain national credit in Europe. [3]

Such a bill had been suggested before during the War of 1812, but was significant at this point in time because of the Civil War at hand. [4] Paying such a tax was seen as an “obligation,” or a “patriotic duty” that was needed “to put down the rebellion.” [5] The bill passed with very little resistance from the general public due to the fact that most citizens really did believe that by paying this tax, they were “protecting their property and secure[ing] the stability and prosperity of the nation.” [6] The federal income tax still exists today, but is perhaps not seen in the same light as it was under its original passage.

Related Events:

1861: Shots Fired on Fort Sumter

Sources:

[1] Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Tribune, 6 April 1861.

[2] Joseph A. Hill, "The Civil War Income Tax," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 8 (July, 1894), 417. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-5533%28189407%298%3A4%3C416%3ATCWIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q, Accessed 9 November 2006].

[3] Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Tribune, August 1861.

[4] Joseph A. Hill, "The Civil War Income Tax," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 8 (July, 1894), 416. [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-5533%28189407%298%3A4%3C416%3ATCWIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q, Accessed 9 November 2006].

[5] Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Tribune, 6 April 1861.

[6] Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Tribune, 7 August 1861.


1861: The Trent Affair

From Bensonwiki

Description

From 8 November 1861 until 1 January 1862, the U.S. and England were embroiled in an affair that pushed the two to the brink of war. It began when Confederate President Jefferson Davis attempted to send John Slidell and James M. Mason to France and England in hopes of garnering support for the Confederacy. U.S. Captain Charles Wilkes of the USS San Jacinto and his first Lieutenant Fairfax learned of the attempt and intercepted the two trying to cross the Atlantic aboard the British mail steamer the Trent. They stopped the ship, took the two C.S.A. agents with them as prisoners back to the States, and allowed the Trent to continue to England. The problem was that in so doing, the U.S. had violated international law with regards to the rights of neutrals by not taking the Trent immediately to the closest port to settle the issue. [1]

Upon Wilkes’s return home, he was honored as a hero, whereas in England the British believed they had been insulted. They immediately began to deploy troops in Canada if the U.S. did not apologize and release Slidell and Mason into their protection. [2] This posed a quandary for Lincoln and Secretary of State William Seward, in that most U.S. citizens would not yield to England, yet Seward knew the U.S. could not fight the British. [3] The issue was resolved with the men being released to England, but maintaining U.S. pride by showing that the British accepted neutral rights which the U.S. had fought for in the War of 1812. [4]

Related Events:

1812: War of 1812, 1823: Monroe Doctrine, 1861: First Battle of Manassas, 1861: Union Blockade of Southern Ports

Sources:

[1] James A. Rawley, Turning Points of the Civil War, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966); 75-79.

[2] Brooklyn, New York, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 18 December 1861. Accessed 10 November 2006, <http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/eagle/&gt;; James A. Rawley, Turning Points of the Civil War, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966); 84.

[3] New York, New York, New York Times, 8 December 1861; James A. Rawley, Turning Points of the Civil War, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966); 90.

[4] James A. Rawley, Turning Points of the Civil War, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966); 91-92.


1861: Union Blockade of Southern Ports

From Bensonwiki

Description

Throughout the Civil War, the Union imposed a naval blockade over all Southern ports in hopes of hurting Southern trade and commerce through measures such as hampering cotton sales out of ports like New Orleans. The U.S. was concerned that the South would begin conducting free trade with foreign powers, and thus distribute those foreign goods to aid their war effort. [1] The idea was suggested by General Winfield Scott as part of his “anaconda plan” in which he hoped to “deprive the South of its resources… [which would] reduce the new Confederation to national bankruptcy.” [2]

President Lincoln was also concerned with how this affected Northern trade. He believed that the South’s rebellion would restrict the North from conducting trade due to the non-existent tariffs on Southern imports. This would eventually hurt all U.S. citizens that engaged in any kind of foreign commerce. [3]

The U.S. could impose the blockade effectively, because most shipbuilding was done in the North. The U.S. could also supplant its navy with chartered merchant ships that were quickly armed and manned to work with the navy. Within the first year of the blockade, the U.S. had 260 warships patrolling Southern waters. The blockade proved to be a success because it isolated Southerners from the world, it diminished the South’s foreign trade to one-third of its average, and the blockade was recognized as legitimate by European powers like England who were more hesitant to conduct trade with the South as a result. [4]

Related Events:

1861: First Battle of Manassas, 1861: The Trent Affair, 1861: Battle of Port Royal

Sources:

[1] Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Tribune, 22 April 1861.

[2] Abraham Lincoln, quoted in, "Blockade of Southern Ports," The Merchants' Magazine and Commercial Review, (June, 1861), 785. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=68550278&sid=1&Fmt=1&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 10 November 2006]; New York, New York, New York Times, 17 May 1861.

[3] Abraham Lincoln, quoted in, "Blockade of Southern Ports," The Merchants' Magazine and Commercial Review, (June, 1861), 785. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=68550278&sid=1&Fmt=1&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 10 November 2006].

[4] James M. Mcpherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 380-385.


1861: Split in Old School Presbyterian Church

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 16 May 1861, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, what was known as the Old-School Presbyterian Church held its General Assembly without any representatives from its Southern churches and declared that it was fully committed to supporting President Lincoln and the Union. This was significant because it furthered the sectional divisions along lines of religion and led the Southern faction of the Presbytery to feel as though it had been “excommunicated.” [1] It also resolved the Southern churches to form their own Presbytery, and hold its own General Assembly on 4 December 1861, in Augusta, GA. [2]

The Presbyterian Church had already split over theological questions in 1837 into Old and New School factions. At the time, the North was evenly divided between Old and New School Presbyterians while the South remained entirely under the Old School faction. [3]

With the Civil War in 1861 though, it was inevitable that another split would occur at this moment in time. The New School Presbyterian Church met and unanimously voted to support President Lincoln and the Union, going as far as to call the South’s actions “treasonable” and imploring all Christians to pray for reunification of the country. [4] The Old School Presbyterians quickly followed suit by calling all ministers and churches under its Presbytery to do all they could in order to “uphold…the Federal Government.” [5] This resulted in a call by Southern Presbyterian churches to dissolve their association with the Old School Presbytery in favor of a Southern faction that “defended…religious liberties” and removed political questions from the Church. [6]

Related Events:

1837: Split in Presbyterian Church, 1861: Confederate States of America Formed, 1861: First General Assembly of the Southern Presbyterian Church

Sources:

[1] "Secession in the Presbyterian Church," New York Evangelist, 32 (11 July 1861), 1. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=846373552&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 11 November 2006].

[2] Ibid., 1.

[3] Randall M. Miller and Harry S. Stout ed., Religion and the American Civil War, (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 78.

[4] New York, New York, New York Times, 25 May 1861.

[5] New York, New York, New York Times, 25 May 1861.

[6] "Secession in the Presbyterian Church," New York Evangelist, 32 (11 July 1861), 1. [APS Online: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=846373552&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=43093&RQT=309&VName=HNP, Accessed 11 November 2006].


1862: General Orders No. 11

From Bensonwiki

On December 17th, 1862, General Ulysses S. Grant issued General Orders No. 11, expelling all Jews from the Treasury Department of Tennessee.[1]This order came quickly on the heels of Grant’s recent failure at Vicksburg, and proved to be one of the most offensive and unparalleled statements of anti-Semitism by a state official.[2] With international trade stopped by the Union blockade, cotton growers in the south sought profits from the northern speculators who tagged along with the Union Army. Grant had been hard pressed to ameliorate the situation of the illegal cotton trade between the north and south, even though regulations had been set in place by the Treasury Department.[3] Grant became aware of the fact that the speculators who gained the most cotton, just happened to be Jewish, moreover, that they had paid for the product in gold. Infuriated by the Jews who were using the rail lines for transportation and infusing the dwindling southern economy with gold, Grant called for the expulsion of all Jews from the Department of the Tennessee.[4] In the General Orders, Grant stated that, “The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also Department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department”.[5] Grants attack on the specific sect of Judaism sent out a hail of criticism specifically from President Lincoln. Lincoln abhorred Grant’s very personal decree, demanded it to be repealed. On January 6, 1863, the order expelling Jews from the Treasury Department of Tennessee was terminated. [6]

Related Events

1861: Jewish Union Soldiers

1861: Union Blockade of Southern Ports

Sources

[1] Jean Edward Smith, Grant, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 225-227.

[2] Geoffrey Perret, Ulysses S. Grant: Soldier and President, (New York: Random House, 1997), 237-238.Italic text

[3] Jean Edward Smith, Grant, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 225-227.

[4] Geoffrey Perret, Ulysses S. Grant: Soldier and President, (New York: Random House, 1997), 237-238.

[5] John Y. Simon, The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant: Volume 7, December 9-March 31: 1862-1863,(Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1979), 50.

[5] Ibid., 51-52.


1862: The Battle of Antietam

From Bensonwiki

The Battle of Antietam was fought on September 17, 1862 outside of Sharpsburg, Maryland and engaged Major General McClellan’s Army of the Potomac with General Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. [1] Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia went on the offensive in September of 1862, having crossed the Potomac river and entered Maryland. Lee intended to move the carnage from Virginia, take Maryland, and establish a base of operations for the planned invasions of Baltimore and Washington D.C. [2] In order to counter the offensive, McClellan was given command of the Army of the Potomac by Lincoln and wrote to his wife stating,”…again I have been called to save the country.” [3] By a stroke of luck, Union troops stumbled upon Lee’s battle plan for Antietam wrapped around three cigars; this provided McClellan with a tactical advantage. [4] On the 17th, McClellan attacked Lee’s left, middle and right flanks, and fought the Confederacy to a draw. As Lee had nowhere to go but back across the Potomac, Lee’s northern invasion lasted a mere three weeks and victory was claimed by Union forces. The Union victory dealt a devastating blow to the Confederate Army and southern morale. [5] Concurrently it provided President Lincoln with the impetus needed to announce the Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862. [6] With close to 6,500 dead, and some 15,000 wounded, this battle marks the single bloodiest day in American history. [7]

Related Events

1862: 2nd Battle of Bull Run

1862: Lee's Invasion of the North

1862: Lincoln Announces the Emancipation Proclamation

1862: Army of Northern Virginia

Sources

[1] James M. McPherson, Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 3, 12.

[2] Matthew Pinsker, American President Reference Series: Abraham Lincoln, (Washington, Dickinson College: CQ Press, 2002), 171.

[3] Henry Steele Commager, The Blue and the Gray: The Story of the Civil War as told by Participants, (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1950), 199.

[4] Matthew Pinsker, American President Reference Series: Abraham Lincoln, (Washington, Dickinson College: CQ Press, 2002), 172.

[5] New York, New York, New York Times, 20 September 1862. Online.

[6] James M. McPherson, Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 138-139.

[7] Ibid., 3.


1862: Lincoln Announces the Emancipation Proclamation

From Bensonwiki

On September 22, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln informed his cabinet that the following day he would announce the Emancipation Proclamation. Having made a pact with God to issue the declaration upon a northern victory at Antietam, he believed the Union victory at Sharpsburg to be a sign that God supported the cause of slave liberation.[1] The proclamation was not immediately enacted in September of 1862, rather the C.S.A had until the first of January, 1863 to reach an armistice. If the Rebels failed to lay down their arms, then Lincoln would have no choice but to issue the Proclamation.[2] The Emancipation Proclamation was an ultimatum for the Confederacy, and called for, “the immediate or gradual abolishment of slavery…” within states of rebellion.[3] Of prominence is the notion that Lincoln intended this to be only a war-time measure, one that would be enacted to cripple the southern economy, and would have most likely been revoked upon northern victory.[4] Public opinion held that if the Confederacy did not lay down their arms before January, then this proclamation would mark, “…the beginning of the end for the Confederacy.”[5] Lincoln was met with opposition from the Democrats, Unionists and even his own General McClellan who opposed the liberation of some four million blacks and their potential impact upon a post-war society.[6] With Lincoln’s proposed emancipation, the conflict turned from one of civil strife to a war of liberation. [7]

Related Events

1862: The Battle of Antietam

1863: Emancipation Proclamation

1865: Thirteenth Amendment Passed

1870: Fifteenth Amendment ratified

Sources


[1] James M. McPherson, “How President Lincoln Decided to Issue the Emancipation Proclamation” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education > No. 37 (Autumn, 2002), 108-109. JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1077-3711%28200223%290%3A37%3C108%3AHPLDTI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W. Accessed 14 November 2006.

[2] Matthew Pinsker, American President Reference Series: Abraham Lincoln, (Washington, Dickinson College: CQ Press, 2002), 131.

[3] Brooklyn, New York, Circular, 25 September 1862. Online.

[4] New York, New York, New York Observer and Chronicle, 2 October 1862. Online.

[5] Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Tribune, 24 September 1862. Online.

[6] Ibid.; James M. McPherson, “How President Lincoln Decided to Issue the Emancipation Proclamation” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education > No. 37 (Autumn, 2002), 109. JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1077-3711%28200223%290%3A37%3C108%3AHPLDTI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W. Accessed 14 November 2006.

[7] James M. McPherson, “How President Lincoln Decided to Issue the Emancipation Proclamation” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education > No. 37 (Autumn, 2002),109. JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1077-3711%28200223%290%3A37%3C108%3AHPLDTI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W. Accessed 14 November 2006.


1862: Innaguration of Jefferson Davis

From Bensonwiki

On February 22, 1862, under rainy skies, Jefferson Davis delivered his inaugural address as the President elect of the Confederate States of America.[1] Having served provisionally since February 18, 1861, alongside Vice President Alexander Stephens, Davis was officially elevated to the position of president without opposition. Held in the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia, Davis’ inauguration speech, like the weather proved to be a somber affair. The address quickly followed the news that nearly 13,000 confederate soldiers had surrendered at Fort Donelson on February 16th. This recent loss of troops had a crushing effect upon southern morale, moreover, Davis had to adjust his speech from one touting the prosperity of the Confederacy to a one outlining the recent Confederate failures.[2] Delivered on George Washington’s birthday, Davis compared the Confederacy’s condition to that of the revolutionaries in the War of Independence.[3] Davis placed heavy prominence upon God’s Providence, and stated that the Lord supported the South in their just cause.[4] When Davis had been appointed the provisional president of the C.S.A the previous year, the occasion had been one of celebration and elation; clearly the drastic change in tone proved that secession would no longer prove to be such an easy feat.[5] At the conclusion of his speech, cries of ,“God bless the president” issued forth from the solemn crowd. In her diary entry for the day, Mrs. Davis paid tribute to her husbands resolve, as well her belief in the notion that he had truly entered into martyrdom.[6]

Related Events

1860: South Carolina Secedes

1860: Jefferson Davis' Senate Resolutions

1860: Democrats Split

1861: Provisional Election of the Confederacy

1861: Confederate States of America Formed

Sources


[1] Hudson Strode, Jefferson Davis: Confederate President. (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1959), 201.

[2] Clement Eaton, Jefferson Davis. (New York: Free Press, 1977), 147-148.

[3] Lynda Crist, ed. The Papers of Jefferson Davis: Volume 8-1862, (Baton Rouge & London: Louisiana State University Press, 1995), 55.

[4] Hudson Strode, Jefferson Davis: Confederate President. (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1959), 202.

[5] Clement Eaton, Jefferson Davis. (New York: Free Press, 1977), 127.

[6] Hudson Strode, Jefferson Davis: Confederate President. (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1959), 202-203.


1862: Homestead Act

From Bensonwiki

It was on the 20th of May, 1862, in during the 37th session of congress, that President Abraham Lincoln signed the Homestead Act into law. Having encountered fierce opposition from Southern Democrats prior on this issue, secession had cleared up the matter of public lands, and the Republicans could act without open resistance. [1] Moreover, Lincoln was happy to fulfill one of the pledges of the Republican party to provide more public lands.[2] The act stated that all persons could lay claim to 160 acres of frontier land as long as they met a few requirements. One had to either be a U.S. citizen, or declare citizenship, live on the land for five years, and pay the registration fee of $10.[3] Lincoln believed that land in the west should be ready and affordable for the poor working men in the east. [4] A complement to the Emancipation Proclamation, this sought to ban slavery in the territories by populating it with self-sufficient peoples. [5] Though the Western Territories were now opened, some of the land was difficult to cultivate, and many territories were already inhabited by Indians. Poor crops and Indian wars such as the Sioux uprising were an unwanted result from settlers in the northern territories. [6] By war’s end, some 26,000 peoples from the U.S. and Europe would migrate to the territories made available by the Homestead Act. [7]

Related Events

1820: Land Act of 1820

1841: Land Act of 1841

1830: Pre-emption Act of 1830

1863: Emancipation Proclamation

1862: Land Grant College Act

Sources

[1] Allen C. Guelzo, Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 377-378.

[2] Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years, (New York: Harcourt, Brace& World, Inc., 1954) 300.

[3] Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Cultivator, 1 June 1862. Online.

[4] Allen C. Guelzo, Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 378.

[5] Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Tribune, 2 June 1862. Online.

[6] Matthew Pinsker, American President Reference Series: Abraham Lincoln, (Washington, Dickinson College: CQ Press, 2002), 122-123.

[7] Allen C. Guelzo, Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 378.


1863: Union Forces Capture Vicksburg

From Bensonwiki

Description

From 18 May – 4 July, 1863 Union forces under the command of Major General Ulysses S. Grant fought and held Confederate Forces commanded by Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton to a standstill which resulted in a 6-week siege of the fortified town of Vicksburg, Mississippi located on a bluff above the Mississippi River. Supported by increasing numbers of men and equipment traveling down the river from the North, Grant was able to literally "dig" his way towards the redoubts of Vicksburg under constant Confederate fire. Faced with a lack of reinforcement and trapped in by Grant's armies, Pemberton surrendered on the 4 July 1863. Rather than take 30,000 troops as prisoners of war, Grant instead decided to parole the soldiers. The capture of Vicksburg gave Federal forces control over a major East-West transfer point of the Confederacy and strengthened Union control over the entirety of the Mississippi River. The victory was not only strategic, it served large propaganda purposes as well. Jefferson Davis on numerous occasions had emphasized the importance of the bulwark of Vicksburg, its loss was a major blow to him personally. As a converse, with his win at Vicksburg Grant continued his rapid rise to the head of Union forces. The defeat of Pemberton also defeated any hopes that the old Northwestern states, always fearful of foreign control of the Mississippi, might strike a separate peace with the Southern states. In fact, in the election of 1864, Republicans enjoyed remarkably strong showings in many of the old northwest states.

Related Links

1864: President Lincoln Re-elected, 1869: Inauguration of Ulysses S. Grant

Sources

Thomas L. Connelly, "Vicksburg: Strategic Point or Propaganda Device?", Military Affairs, Vol. 34, No. 2. (Apr., 1970), pp. 49-53. [JSTOR Accessed November 18, 2006 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-3931%28197004%2934%3A2%3C49%3AVSPOPD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V)]

Michael B. Ballard, Vicksburg: The Campaign That Opened the Mississippi (Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004)


1863: Emancipation Proclamation

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description

On 1 January 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation, the preliminary version of which had been issued on 22 September 1862, was officially enacted. Acting as Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces, President Lincoln ordered that all slaves in the rebellious slaves were freed. Slaves owned by persons in Union controlled territory were not officially affected by this decree initially.

The Emancipation Proclamation put into motion the process of the official destruction of slavery finalized in the Thirteenth Amendment. By issuing the Proclamation as a military order, President Lincoln was able to avoid possible threats to the Proclamation in the Federal Courts or Congress, from "Copperhead" Peace Democrats such as Chief Justice Roger Taney or even General George McClellan, the Commander of the Army of the Potomac.1 The order helped increase the confusion of war in the South and allowed the North to eventually utilize over 180,000 black soldiers during the conflict.2 It also put the powerful, anti-slavery nations of Europe behind the Union war effort, as the Proclamation became a rallying point for workingmen's parties in England who were strongly abolitionist.3

Related Events

1862: Lincoln Announces the Emancipation Proclamation 1865: Thirteenth Amendment Passed

Sources

1Allen C. Guelzo, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004), 6, 39-40.

2 Ira Berlin, Barbara J. Fields, et. al, Slaves No More: Three Essays on Emancipation and the Civil War (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 50-51.

3 Guelzo, Emancipation, 205.

Links

Francis Bicknell Carpenter's First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation, 1864 (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/resources/graphic/xlarge/33_00005.jpg)


1863: New York City Draft Riots

From Bensonwiki

Description

On 11-16 July 1863 a series of riots of mainly Irish-American residents of New York City, burned, looted and murdered in several sections of the city causing millions of dollars of damage and severely shaking the social order of the city. The riots were a response to the dramatic changes the Civil War brought about: key among them the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and the Conscription Act of 1863.[1] When the names of those who were to be drafted were published in newspapers, rioters began vandalizing official government and draft buildings.[2] Later, the rage of the rioters was directed at black citizens of New York. The Colored Orphan Asylum of New York was burned to the ground and numerous blacks were grusomely lynched in the streets.[3] Although New York, like many major cities of this era, had a long history of riots, the Draft Riots of 1863 ranked among the most bloody in American history.[4]

Seeking to quell the violence, city and state officials asked for federal help. Several regiments, many recalled from the recent Battle of Gettysburg, restored a relative calm to the city around the 16 July. Although the draft was able to proceed on 19 August, the Draft Riots were a stark example of the growing discord not just between North and South, but Democrats versus Republicans,upper classes versus lower classes, immigrants versus natives, white versus black all over the nation. [5]

Related Events

1863: Emancipation Proclamation 1863: Battle of Gettysburg

Sources

[1] Adrian Cook, The Armies of the Streets: The New York City Draft Riots of 1863 (Lexington, KY: The Univ. of Kentucky Press, 1974)

[2] New York, New YorkThe New York Times, July 14, 1863

[3] Cook, 174.

[4] Incidents of the 1863 New York Draft Riots Taken From The Report Of The Merchants' Committee For The Relief of Colored People Suffering From The Late Riots In The City Of New York (July 1863) Compiled and Transcribed by Richard Irby (Self-Published) Accessed 13 November 2006 (http://www.geocities.com/irby.geo/nyr/report.html)


1863: Battle of Gettysburg

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description

On 1 —3 July 1863, Encouraged by the Confederate defeat of Union forces at Chancellorsville, Robert E. Lee decided to invade the North to hurt Federal moral, gain access to valuable northern farms and towns, and perhaps even gain European recognition of the Confederate States. On 1 July the Army of Northern Virginia, led by General Lee met the newly appointed Major General George G. Meade and his Army of the Potomac near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. In a three day fight that became the bloodiest battle of the Civil War with close to 50,000 casualties, the Confederates suffered a devastating defeat at a pivotal moment. Overconfident in the performance of his troops and lacking the support of Stonewall Jackson, (who had died at Chancellorsville) Lee was forced to retreat back to Virginia on the evening of 4 July 1863. On 19 November 1863 President Abraham Lincoln gave his famous "Gettysburg Address" at the site of the battle. Influential to contemporaries and present-day readers alike, the speech gave a greater purpose to the seemingly unending war.

Related Events

1863:Battle of Chancellorsville

Sources

Garry Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992). Stephen W. Sears, Gettysburg, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2003).

Links

President Lincoln Seated at the Gettysburg Cemetary Dedication (http://www.usconstitution.com/gettysburg_address.jpg)

Incidents of the war. A harvest of death, Gettysburg, July, 1863 photograph by: Timothy H. O'Sullivan (http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/cwp/4a40000/4a40800/4a40875r.jpg)


1863: Battle of Chancellorsville/Death of Stonewall Jackson

From Bensonwiki

Table of contents

Description

On 2 May 1863, General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson was mistakenly shot by a fellow Confederate soldier while returning from the battlefield near Chancellorsville, Virginia where Confederate forces led by General Jackson and General Robert E. Lee routed a much larger Union force under the command of Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker earlier that day. While a dramatic attempt was made to save General “Stonewall” Jackson by amputating his left arm, he died from complications arising from his injuries and pneumonia eight days later at a nearby plantation in Guiney Station, Virginia.

While the Confederates were clearly victorious at the Battle of Chancellorsville, the loss of General "Stonewall" Jackson as well as 13,000 other Confederate casualties in the battle hurt the future fighting capability of the South, as General Robert E. Lee put it, General Jackson"…has lost his left arm; I have lost my right."1 Contemporary newspaper accounts equated the loss of Stonewall to the death of up to “fifty thousand [Confederate] men!”2 Thousands of people gathered to mourn over Jackson’s casket as it traveled from Guiney Station to Richmond for an official two-day wake before moving onto Lexington, Virginia for burial. In Richmond thousands of people came to pay their respects to General Jackson and “Ladies especially wept profusely over the dead hero, and some pressed their lips upon the coffin.” Newspapers in both the North and the South paid their respects to one of the South's "ablest... military leaders"3.

Related Events

1861: First Battle of Manassas, 1863: Battle of Gettysburg

Sources

1 B.T. Lacy statement, Dabney Papers, Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina, quoted in Stephen W. Sears, Chancellorsville (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), 447.

2 Richmond, Virginia, The Independent XV, 14 May 1863, quoted in Charles Royster The Destructive War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, and the Americans (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991), 203.

3 New York, New York, The New York Times, 14 May 1863.

Links

Everett B.D. Julio's The Last Meeting of Lee and Jackson (http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cph/3a00000/3a05000/3a05600/3a05608r.jpg)


1864: Death of General Sedgwick

From Bensonwiki

Description

On May 9, 1864, General Sedgwick of the Union Army died at the beginning of the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House. His corps was directing artillerly placements, superintending the mounting of heavy guns and probing skirmish lines, when Confederate sharpshooters were firing on him and his men from about 800 yards away. Sedgwick was angry that his men were ducking for cover and said the following to them: "What? Men dodging this way for single bullets? What will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." 1His men were ashamed, but continued to duck away from the bullets and General Sedgwick repeated what he had said about the fact that the Confederat sharpshooters couldn't hit an elephant at this distance and kept on smiling at their narrowness. A few moments later, General Sedgwick fell in the arms of his Assistant Adjutant-General: a bullet hit him in the forehead, below his left eye: smiling strangely, as if to acknowledge the dark humor of it, he died. His death was a shock to the men of his corps: he was the best loved general in the army. Furthermore, they became "heavy with intimations of mortality"2 because of his sudden death. General Sedgwick was the highest ranking Union casualty during the Civil War by date of rank and although his death was not a insuperable loss to the Union, it nevertheless was a shock to many of the Union soldiers and their superiors like General Grant.3

Related Events

1864: Battle of Spotsylvania Court House

Sources

1Shelby Foote, The Civil War A Narrative: Red River to Appomattox, (New York: Random House, 1974), 203.

2Ibid.

3Ibid., Foote, The Civil War A Narrative, 202-203; "Postscript: From the Army. The Position of the Forces. The Rebels Occupy Spottsylvania. Longstreet's Corps Defeated by Gen. Burnside. Death of Longstreet. Particular of Gen. Sedgwick's Death," New York New York Times 11 May 1864; in American Periodical Series Online, 1740-1900, [Accessed 9 November 2006].


1864: Battle of the Wilderness

From Bensonwiki

Description

On September 5 and September 6 1864, Union General Grant's Army of the Potomac and Confederate General Lee's Army of North Virginia came into a clash known as the Battle of the Wilderness near Chancellorsville, Virginia. This Battle is most known for the epic confrontation between perhaps the two best Generals of each side during the Civil War in the U.S, Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. The Battle's name is derived from the fact that the soldiers had to fight in thick forest growth, which resulted in close hand, horrific fighting and a high number of casualties on each side: there were approximately 25.000 casualties, 18.000 Unionists of a total of 100.000 men, 7.000 Confederates of a total of 60.000 men.1

The Battle ended in a draw: there was no clear-cut winner, since neither side had left the battlefield. In addition, a majority of soldiers on both sides thought they had won the battle, which resulted in confusion throughout the North as well as the South. Often seen as an opening act in the drama of the Overland Campaign and followed by the Battle of Spotsylvania, the number of casualties for both the North and the South would only increase. However, it can also be seen as the beginning of the end for the Confederate Army: after Gettysburg and now the Wilderness, they would not win any significant major battles anymore.2

Related Events

1864: Battle of Spotsylvania Court House 1864: Overland Campaign

Sources

1 Ibid., "The Grand Movement: The Advance into Virginia. The Rebel Army Falling Back on Richmond," New York New York Times 7 May 1864; in American Periodical Series Online, 1740-1900, [Accessed 25 October 2006]; "Glorious News: Defeat and Retreat of Lee's Army. Two Days Battle in Virginia. Lieut-General Grant Against Gen. Lee," New York New York Times 9 May 1864; in American Periodical Series Online, 1740-1900, [Accessed 25 October 2006].

2 Ibid., "Glorious News: Defeat and Retreat of Lee's Army."


1864: Wade-Davis Bill

From Bensonwiki

Description

On July 2, Congress approved the Wade-Davis Bill, named after the two men who came up with the Bill, B.F Wade, chairman of the Senate Committee and B. Winter Davis, chairman of the House of Representatives. The bill was issued by Radical Republicans because they were upset at President Lincoln: he had namely proposed lenient regulations in the form of the ten percent plan which was directed towards readmissions of Southern States into the Union in the winter of 1863/1864. In other words, Lincoln appeared to have established the foundation of the Reconstruction policy without consent of the legislative branch.1 The Wade-Davis Bill did not have those lenient regulations: it featured an ironclad oath of allegiance by the majority in each Southern State to the Union instead of Lincoln's prospective oath of allegiance and the constitution of a former secessionist state had to have a clause that abolished slavery. However, the Wade-Davis Bill never came into effect, since President Lincoln killed it by pocket-veto on July 4. Now the sponsors of the Bill issued the Wade Davis Manifesto on August 4, in which they undermined Lincoln's policy towards reconstruction. But Lincoln survived their attacks, became re-elected president and proposed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.2

Related Events

1863: Ten Percent Plan 1865: Thirteenth Amendment Passed

Sources

1Joan Waugh and Gary B. Nash ed., Encyclopedia of American History: Civil War and Reconstruction 1856-1869, volume 5, (New York: Facts on File Inc, 2003), 385.

2Ibid., Waugh and Nash, Encyclopedia of American History, 385-386; "The Wade and Davis Manifesto," Chicago Chicago Tribune 11 August 1864; in American Periodical Series Online, 1740-1900, [Accessed 5 November 2006].


1864: Greenley's Peace Negotiations

From Bensonwiki

Description

On July 5, Horace Greeley, personal advisor of President Lincoln, received a letter with a Confederate proposal for peace negotiations to be held at Niagra Falls in Canada, which he forwarded to president Lincoln. Greeley, who felt that Lincoln had already missed opportunities in achieving peace, desperately wanted a representative of their government to meet the Confederates. On July 12, Lincoln decided to allow the mission to take place although he recognized its futility. He send Horace Greeley himself, who was reluctant to go at first, on the mission to Niagra Falls, Canada, where he arrived at July 17.1

There Greeley met with representatives of the Confederate Government like Clay, Holcombe and Sanders. After telegraphing the president for instructions on July 18, Lincoln answered him with a letter called "to whom it may concern"2 that any treaty between the Confederate Goverment and the Union was acceptable as long as it included "the restoration of peace, the integrity of the whole Union and the abandonment of slavery".3 However, the mission failed, since the commissioners of the Confederate Government did not accept the proposal. Horace Greeley returned to Washington, bereaved of his dreams. So Greeley did not exert any influence and did nothing positive for the Union. Republicans saw the mission as a fiasco and as a reason for alarm over the prospects of Lincoln's reelection. Lincoln however distanced himself from Greeley: "Greeley is not useful for the North: he is like an old shoe, good for nothing, because the stitches would not hold."4 In the end, Lincoln won his reelection. 5

Related Events

1864: President Lincoln Re-elected 1865: End of Civil War

Sources

1 Erik S. Lunde, Horace Greeley, (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1981), 15-25; Glyndon G. van Deusen, Horace Greeley, 19th Century Crusader, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1953), 300-309.

2 "Domestic," Boston Zion's Herald and Wesleyan Journal 27 July 1864; in American Periodical Series Online, 1740-1900, [Accessed 2 November 2006].

3 Glyndon G. van Deusen, Horace Greeley, 19th Century Crusader, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1953), 307.

4 Ibid., 309.

5 Ibid.; van Deusen, Horace Greeley, 19th Century Crusader, 300-309; "Domestic," Boston Zion's Herald and Wesleyan Journal 27 July 1864.


1864: Sherman's March to the Sea

From Bensonwiki

Description

After capturing Atlanta which was deserted by the Confederate forces, General William Tecumseh Sherman, who was supposed to hold Atlanta with a detachment and strike for the coast, came with a plan himself which involved the destruction of Atlanta and a subsequent march to Milledgeville, Millen and Savannah, also known as the March to the Sea. Sherman namely wanted to be on the offensive, not the defensive. Furthermore, he did not believe that the remainings of General Hood's army were a threat. Before Sherman left Atlanta, he burned everything down, except for churches and certain houses. During the march itself, which took off at November 12, his army, 60.000 men strong, would live off the land, thereby terrorizing Southern civilians and leaving a path of destruction: houses, mills and crops were burnt and railroads were destroyed. General Sherman namely intended the march to be a giant raid against the war resources of Georgia: "I can make the March, and make Georgia howl."1

On December 13, General Sherman captured the Confederate Fort McAllister and after that advanced to the city of Savannah, which he took on December 21 without much effort, since it was already abondoned. Since the March to the Sea was now completed, Sherman and his army advanced into South Carolina where he combined his army with that of General Grant, bringing more devastation to the Confederate States.2

Related Events

1864: Sherman's Atlanta Campaign 1864: Capture of Savannah 1865: March through the Carolinas

Sources

1 "Sherman's March to the Sea," Chicago Chicago Tribune 21 October 1865;  in American Periodical Series Online, 1740-1900, [Accessed 25 October 2006].

2 Jospeh T Glatthaar, The March to the Sea and Beyond, (New York and London: New York University Press, 1985), 4-7.


1864: President Lincoln Re-elected

From Bensonwiki

Description

On November 8, 1864, President Abraham Lincoln defeated General George McClellan of the Democratic party and was re-elected president by the people of the United States (in this particular instance, the states that were loyal to the Union.) Andrew Johnson was thereby chosen Vice-President; Lincoln's victory was quite convincing: His popular majority was 400.000 votes out of 4 million, but the electoral vote said it all: 212 electoral seats for Lincoln, only 21 for McClellan.This election can be argued as the most important in American history, since if George McClellan had been elected, the whole outcome of the Civil War could have changed.1

Lincoln's reelection however reaffirmed the central purpose of the war: Reunion and emancipation, which would have to be achieved by power of the army, not by compromise. During the election campaign, Lincoln was quite active, not so much because he desired to serve another term, but because he had a "strong conviction that the fate of the Union, its government, republic institutions and emancipation lay in the balance".2 He believed that a victory of McClellan would mean "a repudiation of all that the Union stood for and would inevitably tarnish America's reputation as 'the last, best hope of earth'". 3 After being reelected, Lincoln would deliver his second inaugural address in march 1865, where he spoke the famous words "With malice toward none; with charity for all."4

Related Events

1860: Lincoln Elected 1865: Lincoln's Second Inaugural Adress 1865: Thirteenth Amendment Passed 1865: Lincoln Assassinated

Sources

1 Charles M. Hubbard, Lincoln Reshapes the Presidency, (Macon, Mercer University Press, 2003), 176-180; "The Presidential Election," New York The Independent 10 November 1864; in American Periodical Series Online, 1740-1900, [Accessed 15 November 2006].

2Ibid., 177.

3 Lincoln's Annual Message to Congress, 1 December 1862, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1953-1955), 5:537, quoted in Charles M. Hubbard, Lincoln Reshapes the Presidency, (Macon, Mercer University Press, 2003), 176-180.

4"President Lincoln's Inaugural Address," New York The Independent 9 March 1865; in American Periodical Series Online, 1740-1900, [Accessed 15 November 2006].


1865: One Furman Student Fights for North

From Bensonwiki

Furman University closed after the 1860-1861 academic school year because of the Civil War. At the end of that year, 155 Furman students were enrolled at the university. Four years later, Cross Roads Church in Greenville, South Carolina, hosted the South Carolina Baptist Convention.. The minutes from that July 1865 reported that, of the 155 Furman students, at least one student, Delorme Benedict, fought for the Union.[1]


Related Sources

1860: South Carolina Secedes

SOURCES

[1] Minutes of the South Carolina Baptist Convention, 1821-1874, Reel 1 , (Special Collections and Archives, Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina), July 1865, 221.


Return to SHDB main page


1865: Freedmen's Bureau Established

From Bensonwiki

On March 3, 1865 the Bureau of Freedmen, Refugees, and Abandoned Land was established under the jurisdiction of the War Department with the intention of providing education for former slaves. [1] The Freedmen’s Bureau divided the former slave states, including border states that did not secede from the Union, into 10 districts, with Major Oliver O. Howard as Commissioner.[2] After the war, there were several million freedmen who received help from the Bureau in establishing schools and hospitals, finding jobs, and settling land disputes.[3] Congress originally approved the Freedmen’s Bureau for one year, but in 1866 it passed legislation that enlarged the Bureau’s powers. Despite President Andrew Johnson’s attempt to veto the bill, Congress overrode his authority to extend the terms of the Bureau indefinitely. During its life, the Freedmen’s Bureau was criticized for corruption and abuse of power. In addition, Bureau agents were not welcomed in the South, and it was not uncommon for them to be abused or killed.[4] As to the achieving a stable economy, some argue that the overall impact of the Freedman’s Bureau was slight, and relied mostly upon labor relations between whites and blacks.[5] The Bureau was discontinued in 1869.[6]

Related Events

1863: Emancipation Proclamation 1865: Davis Arms Slaves 1866: Foundation of the Ku Klux Klan 1866: Proposition of the Fourteenth Amendment 1867: Reconstruction Acts 1867: Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment 1875: Civil Rights Act 1883: Supreme Court Strikes Down Civil Rights Act of 1875


SOURCES

[1]The Encyclopedia of American Facts and Dates, 1966 ed., "1865," 276. [2]The Encyclopedia of the South, 1995 ed, "Freedmen's Bureau," 152. [3] Jones, Terry L., Historical Dictionary of the Civil War, (Lanham, Maryland, The Scarecrow Press Inc., 2002), 350-51. [4] "An Agent of the Freedmen's Bureau Murdered," New York Times (Feb 8, 1866), ProQuest Historical Newspapers, 8. [5] White, Howard A., The Freedmen's Bureau in Louisiana found in Channing, Steven A., The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 36, No. 4. (Nov., 1970), 612-613. [6]Encyclopedia of the South, 152.


Return to SHDB main page


1865: Davis Arms Slaves

From Bensonwiki

Throughout the Civil War, white Southerners vehemently opposed arming slaves for battle. Slave owners were adamant in preserving the slave system and held onto an intense fear of slave rebellion. Blacks were included in the Confederate army, though they were confined to non-combatant roles, such as servants and cooks.[1] “Most Southern whites were committed to notions of black racial inferiority and justified slavery on that basis. If they admitted Afro-American slaves into the fraternity of warriors, they also admitted that black manhood was equal to white manhood.”[2] As the Confederacy began to unravel, an impassioned debate broke out when pragmatic Southerners entertained the thought of enlisting slaves, filling editorials not only in the South, but in Northern cities like Boston as well.[3] Finally, on March 13, 1865, Confederate President Jefferson Davis authorized the recruitment of 300,000 black men for Confederate armies.[4] However, President Davis was certain to establish that this change in policy was nothing more than an act of desperation, a necessity for national survival. The statement calling for enlistment of black Southerners included a reactionary clause: “. . . nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves bear toward their owners.” [5] President Lincoln knew that the Confederate’s use of slaves as soldiers was a sign of its slow demise. “They have drawn upon their last resources,” he said, “And I am glad to see the end so near at hand.”[6]

Related Events

1863: Emancipation Proclamation 1865: Thirteenth Amendment Passed


SOURCES

[1]Miller, Randall M. and Smith, John David, Dictionary of Afro-American Slavery,(New York: Greenwood Press, 1988), 135-136. [2]Ibid, 136. [3]"Arming the Slaves"Liberator Mar 10, 1865; vol. 35, no. 10; APS Online, 40. [4]The Encyclopedia of American Facts and Dates, 1966 ed., "1865," 276. [5]Miller, 141. [6]"Presiden Lincoln's Views on Arming Slaves," Liberator (Mar. 24 1865, vol. 35, no. 12) APS Online, 47


Return to SHDB main page


1865: Battle of Five Forks

From Bensonwiki

From 1864-1865, Petersburg, Virginia, a major railroad center in the south, was the scene of one of the longest sieges of the Civil War. At the end of March, Union General Ulysses S. Grant knew that Lee’s army was weak. In nearby Dinwiddle County. Grant ordered an attack on Confederate forces’ right flank on March 29 [1]. For the next few days, Union soldiers progressed up the Confederate front, crushing Lee’s protection of Petersburg in what became the Battle at Five Forks—the “beginning of the end for the Confederacy” [2] After Union soldiers closed the right flank, allowing Union General Sheridan to close the south side of the railway, it became clear to Lee that the battle would be lost. General Lee ordered the retreat of his troops and the evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond [3]. By April 1, the battle was over. Grant lost 42,000 men and Lee lost only 28,000. But, in the end, the Union was victorious after a 10-month siege of Petersburg, Virginia [4]. More importantly, however, the Battle of Five Forks allowed Union forces to march into Richmond, the Confederate capitol, just two days after the battle’s end [5]. On April 3, the New York Times published telegrams dispatched to Lincoln from Grant and under a headline that read “Victory! Overwhelming Defeat of Rebel Army." [6]

Related Events

1865: Richmond Captured 1865: Lee Surrenders at Appomattox

SOURCES

[1] Jones, Terry L., Historical Dictionary of the Civil War, (Lanham, Maryland, The Scarecrow Press Inc., 2002), 1076-77. [2] Chronicle of America, 1989 ed., "Five Forks Brings Seige to a Close," 390. [3] Jones, 1077. [4] Ibid, 1078. [5]The Encyclopedia of the South, 1985 ed, "Five Forks," 324. [6]"Victory!" New York Times, Apr 3, 1865; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, 1


Return to SHDB main page


1865: Richmond Captured

From Bensonwiki

On April 3, 1883, the Union army marched into Richmond, Virginia, the Confederate capital, led by Major General Godfrey Weitzel. [1] Upon their arrival, Union troops began extinguishing the fires that smoldered the city’s buildings and streets.[2] Two days later, President Abraham Lincoln arrived in the city, despite warnings that his life could be in danger. As Lincoln made his way through the chaotic Richmond streets to the Confederate White House, he was applauded by jubilant African-Americans who recognized him. Lincoln was also accompanied by a Union cavalry of black soldiers. Lincoln sat in the Confederate President Jefferson Davis’s chair.[3] Yet, despite the cheers and songs, Lincoln was sure to make “no formality or fuss” over his presence in Richmond.[4] A similar reaction was felt throughout the Union, as newspaper headlines reported jubilant celebrations throughout the Northern metropolises.[5] Surrender of the Confederate army was sure to follow the collapse of its capitol.

Related Links

1865: Battle of Five Forks 1865: Lee Surrenders at Appomattox

SOURCES

[1]The Encyclopedia of American Facts and Dates, 1966 ed., "1865," 276, [2]Chronicle of America, 1989 ed., "Confederate Capitol Captured," 390. [3] Ibid, 390 and Jones, Terry L., Historical Dictionary of the Civil War, (Lanham, Maryland, The Scarecrow Press Inc., 2002), 1078. [4]Jones, 1078 [5]"Richmond Ours!" The Independent ... Devoted to the Consideration of Politics, Social and Economic Tendencies, History, Literature, and the Arts (Apr 6, 1865, vol. 17, no. 853), APS Online, 8, and "Rejoicing in Boston over the News," Liberator (Apr 7, 1865, vol. 35, no. 14), APS Online, 55.


Return to SHDB main page


1865: Lee Surrenders at Appomattox

From Bensonwiki

On April 9, 1865, Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, bringing the four-year Civil War to an end. The day before, Lee had sent a note to Grant requesting terms for surrender. Grant replied that the only terms would be unconditional surrender.[1] There, sitting in the parlor of Wilmer McLean, who had moved from Manassas after a bomb shell flew by his house during the first Battle of Bull Run, the two generals discussed the conditions of surrender. Grant wrote out the terms, which were thus: each Confederate officer was required to lay down arms, and not take up arms again unless otherwise exchanged; rebel soldiers were also allowed to keep their horses, most of which were privately owned.[2] The formal surrender ceremony took place on April 12. Approximately 28,000 Confederate soldiers marched between two lines of Union soldiers at Appomattox that day. Several witnesses noted the surrender’s peaceful procession, as a tremendous degree of respect was displayed on both sides. It would be a full year until Andrew Johnson could declare the end of the insurrection, yet the surrender at Appomattox symbolized the beginning of the end of the Confederate States of America.[4]

Related Links

1865: Battle of Five Forks 1865: Richmond Captured

SOURCES

[1]Chronicle of America, 1989 ed, 392. [2]Ibid, 391. [3]Heidler, David Stephen, Encyclopedia of the American Civil War, (Santa Barbara, Calif. : ABC-CLIO, 2000),70-72, Jones, Terry L., Historical Dictionary of the Civil War, (Lanham, Maryland, The Scarecrow Press Inc., 2002),1396-97. [4]Heidler, 70-72, and "The Finishing Blows!--Surrender of Lee!" The Independent ... Devoted to the Consideration of Politics, Social and Economic Tendencies, History, Literature, and the Arts, (New York: Apr 13, 1865, Vol.17, Iss. 854), APS Online, 8.

Return to SHDB main page


1865: Lincoln Assassinated

From Bensonwiki

On the night of April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth made climbed up the stairs in Ford’s Theater to the box where President Abraham Lincoln and his wife were watching the play “Our American Cousin.” Booth waited for a line in the play that always aroused laughter from the audience, then raised his single-shot Derringer pistol and shot the president behind the left ear. The assassin, an actor himself, then leaped from the balcony onto the stage, shouted, “Sic Semper Tyrannis!”—“Thus always to tyrants”—and limped away.[1] President Lincoln was carried across the street to a tailor’s house, where he died early the next morning, becoming the first American president to be assassinated. Booth, an estranged Southern enthusiast, had been plotting to kidnap the President before the defeat of the Confederacy and hold him hostage in exchange for rebel prisoners. The plot was foiled by Union victory, and Booth and his co-conspirators instead plotted to assassinate Lincoln and his top officials. He was the only successful assassin.[2] The trial left many of the circumstances surrounding the conspiracy foggy because rumors captivated the public that the assassination was a plot of the ex-Confederates, led by Jefferson Davis himself.[3] Abraham Lincoln was quickly hailed as a marty by many Americans. The president's body was carried across the nation to Springfield, Illinois, where he was buried. The procession was a sort of nationwide “catharsis” for country emerging from four years of bloody civil war.[4]

Related Events

1865: Lee Surrenders at Appomattox

SOURCES

[1] Jones, Terry L., Historical Dictionary of the Civil War, (Lanham, Maryland, The Scarecrow Press Inc., 2002),830-31; Chronicle of America, 1989 ed., 394; and Parish, Peter J., The American Civil War, (New York: Holmes and Meiers Publishers, Inc., 1975), 573. [2] Jones, 830-31. [3] Jones, 830-31, and Parish, 573. [4]"Character of Mr. Lincoln," New York Evangelist, (Apr 20, 1865, vol. 36, no.16), APS Online, 1, and Parish, 573.

Return to SHDB main page


1865: Thirteenth Amendment Passed

From Bensonwiki

On December 18, 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed in Congress. The amendment effectively abolished slavery, stating in section one, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."[1] At the outset of the Civil War, slavery was not the crux issue of secession. As the war progressed, however, the idea of emancipating slaves grew more popular among Northerners and abolitionists alike. Abolitionists supported the notion for obvious reasons, but for their part, non-abolitionist Northerners saw emancipation as a means to weaken the Confederacy and bring the war to a close [2]. The document itself was the first amendment to the United States Constitution that brought about radical change to society. Previous amendments focused solely on changing election rules or limiting the power of the government [3]. The legislation freeing slaves initiated in January 1864, but was not ratified by the states until December 1865. Lincoln himself “said that no state could expect legitimate status in the union without ratification, forcing Southern states to acquiesce upon readmission” [4].

Related Sites

1863: Emancipation Proclamation 1864: President Lincoln Re-elected 1865: Freedmen's Bureau Established

SOURCES

[1]The Constitution of the United States of America, found in The Constitution Of The United States Of America, Analysis and Interpretation, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996), 1453. [2] Jones, Terry L.,Historical Dictionary of the Civil War, (Lanham, Maryland, The Scarecrow Press Inc., 2002), 1423-4. [3] Ibid, 1424. [4] Chronicle of America, 1989 ed., "Amendment Frees Slaves," 397, and Vorenberg, Michael, Final Freedom: The Civil War, Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 54-5.


Return to SHDB main page


1865 - 1866:: Black Codes

From Bensonwiki

(There is currently no text in this page)


1866: Founding of the Ku Klux Klan

From Bensonwiki

Description

After the Civil War, secret organizations were formed to oppose Reconstruction and subordinate recently emancipated blacks. In 1866, Confederate army veterans formed the first Ku Klux Klan in Pulaski, Tennessee. The branch was initially designed to be only a fraternal body. However, they quickly became aware of the power of a secret organization of armed white men. Disguised klansmen, wearing a long white robe and a white hood to mask their face, threatened and killed blacks who sought equal rights.1

At that time, the Ku Klux Klan was estimated of having 40,000 followers in Tennessee alone.2 The organization was believed to be stronger in other Southern states with a total of 550,000 followers.

The first branch of the Ku Klux Klan died after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act which protected blacks from the Ku Klux Klan. The second branch became active after the release of the motion picture Birth of a Nation in 1915.3

Related events

1871: Civil Rights Act

Sources

1 Salzman, Smith and West eds., Encyclopaedia of African-American Culture and History Vol. 3 (New York: MacMillan Library Reference USA; Simon & Schuster, 1996), 1556.

2 U.S. Congress, Report on the Joint Select Committee to Inquire into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States (a.k.a. Ku Klux Conspiracy) (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1872), 8

3 Encyclopaedia of African-American Culture and History Vol. 3, 1557.


1866: Passage of the Civil Rights Act

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was designed to protect blacks from the Black Codes. The act gave citizenship to blacks; a legislation that was necessary after the Dred-Scott decision because that decision denied citizenship to blacks.

The act states in the first section that “Be it enacted, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens , of every race and color, without regard of any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory of the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws, and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, or custom, is the contrary notwithstanding”.1

President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act because he felt that the bill interfered with the legislation of the states and the existing relationship between a state and its citizens. He said that “the power to confer the right of State citizenship is just as exclusively with the several States as the power to confer the right of Federal citizenship is with Congress”.2

The Congress overruled Johnson’s veto but made arrangements to propose the Fourteenth Amendment in order to change the Constitution.

Related Events

1857: Dred-Scott v.Sandford, 1866: Proposition of the Fourteenth Amendment

Sources

1 U.S. Congress, “Civil Rights Act” (9 April 1866) in Henry Steele Commager, Documents of American History, 8th ed. (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Division of Meredith Corporation, 1968), 464

2 Andrew Johnson, “Veto of the Civil Rights Act” (27 March 1866) in Henry Steele Commager, Documents of American History, 8th ed. (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Division of Meredith Corporation, 1968), 466


1866: Passage of the Civil Rights Act

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was designed to protect blacks from the Black Codes. The act gave citizenship to blacks; a legislation that was necessary after the Dred-Scott decision because that decision denied citizenship to blacks.

The act states in the first section that “Be it enacted, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens , of every race and color, without regard of any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory of the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws, and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, or custom, is the contrary notwithstanding”.1

President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act because he felt that the bill interfered with the legislation of the states and the existing relationship between a state and its citizens. He said that “the power to confer the right of State citizenship is just as exclusively with the several States as the power to confer the right of Federal citizenship is with Congress”.2

The Congress overruled Johnson’s veto but made arrangements to propose the Fourteenth Amendment in order to change the Constitution.

Related Events

1857: Dred-Scott v.Sandford, 1866: Proposition of the Fourteenth Amendment

Sources

1 U.S. Congress, “Civil Rights Act” (9 April 1866) in Henry Steele Commager, Documents of American History, 8th ed. (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Division of Meredith Corporation, 1968), 464

2 Andrew Johnson, “Veto of the Civil Rights Act” (27 March 1866) in Henry Steele Commager, Documents of American History, 8th ed. (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Division of Meredith Corporation, 1968), 466


1866: Proposition of the Fourteenth Amendmenth

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Fourteenth Amendment is first proposed to Congress on 13 June 1866, although it wasn’t passed until 1868. Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment in response to president Johnson´s veto over the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The purpose of the proposition of the Fourteenth Amendment was to further improve race relations in the South after slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. Johnson´s veto made clear that the federal Constitution needed to be amended before blacks could be granted citizenship and protection under the law, equal as whites.

Although Congress agreed to propose the Fourteenth Amendment, there was no unanimity in reactions from Southern states. The border-state Tennessee, for example, was willing to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment in the same year it was proposed and as a consequence, became the first confederate state that was readmitted to the Union. Other states had a harder time accepting the Fourteenth Amendment, but they all saw it as a penalty for losing the war that was to be expected.1

Related events

1866: Tennessee being readmitted to the Union as first confederate state, 1868: Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment

Sources

1Joseph B. James, “Southern Reaction to the Proposal of the Fourteenth Amendment”, The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 22, No. 4. (Nov., 1956), 477. Available at JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28195611%2922%3A4%3C477%3ASRTTPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C (accessed 17 November 2006)


1866: Tennessee being readmitted to the Union as first confederate state

From Bensonwiki

Description

During the war, Tennessee was a state that was not as strongly a secessionist state as South Carolina, for instance. Although it did secede, there was always a strong abolitionist and anti-secessionist political movement in Tennessee during this period. When the Fourteenth Amendment came under debate, there was local support favoring passing the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, Tennessee was readmitted to the Union because it expressed its loyalty to the Union’s cause. Tennessee became the third state and the first former Confederate state to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus became the first Confederate state to gain reentry to the Union. As a result Tennessee’s government was also returned to local authority instead of union authority. Shortly after the president signed the resolution to their seats in Congress, the formal restoration of the state to all its rights under the constitution became an accomplished fact.1

Related events

Sources

1 Sen. Misc. Docs., 39 Cong., 1 Sess., isc. Docs., 39 Cong,.,1 Sess., No. 47, 271-74 iJames Welch Patton, Ph. D., Unionism and Reconstruction in Tennessee, (Massachusetts: University of North Carolina Press, 1966), 225.


1867:Medicine Lodge Treaty

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Medicine Lodge Treaty was a treaty signed between the United States Government and Various Indian nations including the Apache, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Comanche and Kiowa. This treaty actually consisted of three separate treaties, which were each signed by separate Indian nations. The Kiowa and Comanche tribes signed the first on October 21, 1867. The Kiowa and Apache representatives signed the second treaty the same day and the Cheyenne and Arapaho leaders signed the third treaty on the 28th. The treaty diminished the size of these tribe’s reservations and relocated them to the state of Oklahoma. This treaty was immediately controversial since the democratic societies of these tribes required three fourths of their adult members to ratify any treaty. This requirement of the treaty was never achieved and since this measure was built into the treaty itself it was contested by the Indian nations. This issue was later brought to a close with Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock in 1903. This is a case in which the chief of the Kiowa sued the US Secretary because he believed that the tribes involved in this treaty had been defrauded by the government.

Related Events

1903: Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock


Sources


"Article 1—No Title," The Friend; a religious and literary journal (1827-1906); Nov 2, 1867;41,10; APS Online pg. 80


1867:John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge

From Bensonwiki

Description

The John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge was opened between Cincinnati, Ohio and Covington, Kentucky, becoming the longest suspension bridge in the world in 1867. The Roebling Suspension Bridge spans the Ohio River with a length of 1,057 feet and maintained its title as the longest suspension bridge until 1883. This bridge took 10 years of building to complete because of some financial difficulties due to the Civil War. It officially opened on January 1, 1867 even though the building was complete in 1866. This bridge became a necessity due to the large amount of ferry traffic between Covington and Newport. The original work order stated that this bridge could not have any piers in the water since the city did not want to interfere with the water shipping. It was required to have a length of 1,400 and a deck clearance of 112 feet. These requirements were abandoned by the time construction was actually begun which turned into the specifications of what the bridge is today.

Related Events



Sources

Structurae: Cincinnati-Covington Bridge (1867) http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0000513

Roebling Suspension Bridge at Cincinnati-Transit.net http://www.cincinnati-transit.net/suspension.html

John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge. RootsWeb.com. http://www.rootsweb.com/~kycampbe/roeblinghistory.htm


1867:Purchase of Alaskan Territory

From Bensonwiki

Description

Alaska was purchased from Russia due to the persuasion of Secretary of State William Seward. This territory was about 600,000 square miles and became the state of Alaska. The czar of Russia, Alexander the Second, decided to sell the territory since he feared losing it in a military engagement with the British and was in the middle of a financial crisis. The decision to buy Alaska was pushed by Seward, an expansionist, since it promoted American expansion as well as aided the Russians who had been an important ally during the Civil War. It also gave the United States a territory bordering the British in Canada. This purchase was not favored by the general public and was quickly labeled Seward’s Folly by the press. This was due to the fact that so much money was spent on such a remote region. The Treaty was ratified on April 9, 1867 with a vote of 37 to 2. On October 18, 1867 the transfer ceremony took place in Sitka, Alaska where General Lovell Rousseau accepted the territory from the Russians.

Related Events



Sources

"The Territory of Alaska", New York Observer and Chronicle (1833-1912); Aug 29,1867; 45, 35 ; APS Online pg. 278

"Official Transfer of Alaska", New York Observer and Chronicle (1833-1912); Nov 21, 1867; 45, 47; APS Online pg. 374

"Alaska", Friends’ Intelligencer (1853-1910);Dec 14,1867;24,41; APS Online pg. 649


1867:Ratification of Nebraska, the 37th U.S. state

From Bensonwiki

Description

Nebraska was admitted as the 37th State within the United States after the Civil War even though it was agreed upon in the Kansas-Nebraska act that it should have become a state before the war. The debate over allowing this state involved the question of southern reconstruction. The state constitution of Nebraska denied voting rights to Negro citizens by having the word “white” in its constitution as those who have the ability to vote. Congressmen Sumner questioned how the congress could allow a state into the union with this language in the constitution when the United States was requiring equal rights in the southern states. Mr. Sumner made the point that the admittance of a new state is exactly where the U.S. government has the authority to shape a state’s constitution. Nebraska was admitted to the union along with the state of Colorado but these are the issues, which kept this from happening until after the Civil War as well as the violence associated with the Kansas slavery issue.

Related Events

Sources

"Nebraska and Colorado," The independent…Devoted to the consideration of politics, social and Econ… Jan 17, 1867; 19,946 Aps On-line Pg. 4


1867:Reconstruction Acts

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Reconstruction Acts were instituted during the radical reconstruction period, which was instituted when Congressmen Stevens and Sumner led the radicals to gain control of congress. The first of these acts were passed in March of 1867. The radicals passed these acts despite the veto of President Johnson due to the complete domination of congress since the South did not have representatives. The reconstruction act set up 5 military districts made up of the southern states in which the military commanders are supreme. This did not apply to Tennessee since they ratified the 14th amendment and were allowed back into the union. The military commanders had the power to appoint and remove state officials. Southern voters were registered which included all freedmen and those white men who took the extended loyalty oath. The southern states had to redraft their state constitutions providing for black male suffrage. In order to reenter the union, all southern states had to ratify the 14th amendment.

Related Events

1861:Civil War 1865:Abraham Lincoln's Assasination



Sources

"The Reconstruction Act," New York Ties (1857-current file); Jun 23, 1867; proquest historical newspapers the New York Times (1851- PG 1


1868: Johnson's Impeachment

From Bensonwiki

Description

President Johnson was impeached in the early spring of 1868. He was accused of several things, though the most important was the violation of the Tenure of Office Act. This Act stated that the president could not terminate a government official that had required Senate confirmation without the approval of the Senate. When President Johnson released the Secretary of War Edwin M Stanton without approval, the Senate was armed with ammunition to attack Johnson. [1]

In addition to the violation of the Tenure of Office Act, Congress accused Johnson of violations of the Command of the Army Act and with “attempting to bring disgrace and ridicule upon Congress.” [2] The trial of Johnson was a very big event and there were so many people that wanted a spot in the galleries that admission tickets were issued. [3] Johnson was not a popular president in the eyes on Congress, and in one newspaper commentary the author demonstrates all of the problems with Johnson as president and says, “he has not only violated the express letter of the Constitution, but he has committed a statutory crime.” [4] The vote on removal from office was extremely close in the House of Representatives, only one short of the two thirds majority required for removal. The vote was 126 to 47 on all counts, and Johnson remained the President. [5]

Related Events

1867: Tenure of Office Act, Command of the Army Act

Sources

[1] Kirshon, John W. Chronicle of America, (Chronicle Publications, 1989), 406 [2] Morris, Richard B. Encyclopedia of American History, (Harper Brothers Publishers, 1953), 249 [3] Kirshon, Chronicle, 406 [4] “Impeachment”, Chicago Tribune (1860-1872) February 23, 1868. ProQuest, Historical Newspapers, Chicago Tribune 91849-1985) p. 0_2 [5] Kirshon, Chronicle, 406


1868: Johnson's Impeachment

From Bensonwiki

Description

President Johnson was impeached in the early spring of 1868. He was accused of several things, though the most important was the violation of the Tenure of Office Act. This Act stated that the president could not terminate a government official that had required Senate confirmation without the approval of the Senate. When President Johnson released the Secretary of War Edwin M Stanton without approval, the Senate was armed with ammunition to attack Johnson. [1]

In addition to the violation of the Tenure of Office Act, Congress accused Johnson of violations of the Command of the Army Act and with “attempting to bring disgrace and ridicule upon Congress.” [2] The trial of Johnson was a very big event and there were so many people that wanted a spot in the galleries that admission tickets were issued. [3] Johnson was not a popular president in the eyes on Congress, and in one newspaper commentary the author demonstrates all of the problems with Johnson as president and says, “he has not only violated the express letter of the Constitution, but he has committed a statutory crime.” [4] The vote on removal from office was extremely close in the House of Representatives, only one short of the two thirds majority required for removal. The vote was 126 to 47 on all counts, and Johnson remained the President. [5]

Related Events

1867: Tenure of Office Act, Command of the Army Act

Sources

[1] Kirshon, John W. Chronicle of America, (Chronicle Publications, 1989), 406 [2] Morris, Richard B. Encyclopedia of American History, (Harper Brothers Publishers, 1953), 249 [3] Kirshon, Chronicle, 406 [4] “Impeachment”, Chicago Tribune (1860-1872) February 23, 1868. ProQuest, Historical Newspapers, Chicago Tribune 91849-1985) p. 0_2 [5] Kirshon, Chronicle, 406


1868: Fourth Act of Reconstruction

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Fourth Act of Reconstruction was a supplementary measure to the Reconstruction plan that the Radicals passed in Congress and overrode President Johnson’s veto. The act states that a majority of the votes cast would decide the fate of the new state constitution. [1] This act passed on March 11, and it was a precursor to the Omnibus bill that allowed several southern states back into Congress. [2] The act negated the Second Military Reconstruction Act, which stated that a majority of registered voters had to approve the new constitution before it was adopted. This act was put into place to try and add validity to the new required constitutions in the south. There were two ways around the second act, either get the majority of registered voters to vote against the constitution, or to discourage people from voting, there fore preventing a majority to approve. Mississippi was the only state to successfully vote down the constitution, but in many other sates there was an effort to discourage voting. The Federal Government responded to this with the Fourth Act of Reconstruction. This allowed for many of the states to have the constitution accepted. [3] The Fourth Act of Reconstruction allowed for many southern states to be admitted back into Congress faster.

Related Events

1867:Reconstruction Acts, Radical Republicans,

Sources

[1] Carruth, Gorton, and Associates. Encyclopedia of American Facts and Dates (Thomas Cromwell and Co. 1966), 284 [2] Morris, Richard B. Encyclopedia of American History, (Harper and Brothers Publishers 1953), 248 [3] Coulter, E. Merton. The South during Reconstruction. (Louisiana State University Press, 1947), 137-138


1868: Invention of Ice Cream Soda

From Bensonwiki

Description

In 1868 in San Antonio, Texas Ice Cream Soda was invented. It was invented in the Harrison and Baer Ice Cream Parlor, and it is the combination of soda water and ice cream in a tall glass. This invention broadened the use of ice cream, and is still a popular choice today.

Sources

Kirshon, John W. Chronicle of America, (Chronicle Publications, 1989), 406


1868: Eight Hour Workday Law

From Bensonwiki

Description

In 1868 Congress passed a law that limited government employees and employees of government contractors to an eight hour workday. [1] The law was passed in June and it was supported by a larger movement for the eight hour workday in all sectors. The inclusion of government contractors in the 1868 law was an innovation and it was seen as a step that would encourage the eight hour day in other industries. [2]

The Labor laws in the 1860’s were influenced by the labor organizations, National Labor Union being the most prominent. The 1868 law was pushed for by two politicians, Ben Butler, and General Banks. These men kept the conversation about labor law going, and with the additional lobbying efforts by the National Labor Union, the bill was put into effect in June. [3]

The passage of this law was problematic to some, particularly the “time-rate” employees. [4] There is not a provision in the law that mandates the wages to stay the same, though the debates in Congress indicated that the House and Senate expected the wages to stay the same.[5] An opinion y Attorney General Evarts states, “a corresponding reduction of wages was not inconsistent with the provisions of the act.” [6] The enforcement was also a problem due to many court decisions that failed to recognize this as a mandatory measure. The eight hour law in 1868 has been a starting point for the labor legislation that we are affected by today. [7]

Related Events

1840: Van Buren Executive Order on Workday, 1836: Labor Law, 1861: Navy Yard Workday Act

Sources

[1] Morris, Richard B. Encyclopedia of American History, (Harper Brothers Publishers, 1953), 521 [2] Kelly, Matthew A., “Early Federal Regulation of Hours of Labor in the United States” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol, 3, No. 3, (Aril 1950) 362-374 [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0019-7939%28195004%293%3A3%3C362%3AEFROH O%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I accessed 13 November 2006] [3] Ibid, 362-374 [4] Ibid, 362-374 [5] Ibid, 362-374 [6] The American Annual Cyclopedia and Register of important events for the Year of 1868, (D. Appleton and Co. 1868) [7] Kelly, “Early Federal” 362-374


1868: Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment

From Bensonwiki

Description

The Fourteenth Amendment was an extension of the Civil Rights Act. This Amendment provides for apportionment based on population as well as makes it illegal for anyone that had previously taken an oath of allegiance to the United States and fought for the Confederacy to be unable to run for an office, civil or military. [1] The amendment also adds that the United States will not “assume any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave.” [2] Ratification of this amendment was a requirement for re-entry into Congress. [4]

The amendment also defines citizenship for the first time, and increased the southern representation in the House of Representatives by outlawing the three-fifths clause. Finally the Fourteenth Amendment allows for federal government to interfere in the states if there was a violation of the amendment. This portion of the amendment is a turning point in the issue of federal and state powers of enforcement. [3]

There were mixed feelings at the time about this amendment. In the south the amendment was not always well received as seen in the Atlanta newspaper, the “redeeming feature to the Constitutional Amendment; is that it left the question of suffrage to the states, to whom it properly belonged” [5]

Related Events

1866: Passage of the Civil Rights Act

Sources

[1] Kirshon, John W. Chronicle of America, (Chronicle Publications, 1989), 406 [2] U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment, http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment14/index.html> accessed November 12, 2006 [3] Morris, Richard B. Encyclopedia of American History, (Harper Brothers Publishers, 1953), 247 [4] Kirshon, Chronicle, 406 [5]Fielder, Herbert, “Fourteenth Amendment”, The Constitution (1868-1869) July 7, 1868; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, Atlanta Constitution (1868-1929)


1868: Johnson's Amnesty Proclimations

From Bensonwiki

Description

After the Civil War, President Johnson issued a series of proclamations granting amnesty to the ex-Confederates. The first of such proclamations was issued on May 29, 1865. This early proclamation was not a vastly extensive proclamation of amnesty; there were fourteen classes of people that were not covered in the proclamation, including those who had a taxable value of greater than twenty thousand dollars. The people that were excluded from this pardon were able to apply for pardon on an individual basis. [1]

The next pardon that Johnson issued was on July 4th 1868 and pardoned all except those who were under “indictments in any court of the United Sates having competent jurisdiction upon a charge of treason or other felony.” [2] Johnson was careful not to include Jefferson Davis in this proclamation, as he feared it would be another count of impeachment that Congress could try him for if Davis was released. [3]

The final amnesty proclamation occurred December 25th. This proclamation granted pardon to, “all participates in the late rebellion” [4] This pardon released Jefferson Davis and effectively ended his trial for treason. [5] The pardons were looked on favorably, “it is believed that amnesty and pardon will tend to secure complete and universal establishment and prevalence of municipal law and order, in conformity with the Constitution of the United States.”[6]

Related Events

1868: Trial of Jefferson Davis, 1868: Johnson's Impeachment

Sources

[1] Malone, Dumas. Dictionary of American Biography (Charles Scribner’s Sons 1930), 87-88 [2] Nichols, Roy Franklin. “United States vs. Jefferson Davis, 1865-1869”, The American Historical Review, Vol. 31, No. 2, (January, 1926), 266-284 [JSTOR: <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-=8762%28192601%2931%3A2%3C266%3AU SVJD1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z accessed 12 November, 2006] [3] Ibid, 281 [4] Ibid, 283 [5] Ibid, 283 [6] “Telegrams”, New York Times (1857- current file) July 4, 1868, ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851-2003)


1868: Trial of Jefferson Davis

From Bensonwiki

Description

After the Civil War there was a widespread feeling that Jefferson Davis should be punished to set an example. [1] Jefferson Davis and other prominent Confederate leaders were first arrested for a believed connection to the assassination of President Lincoln. Jefferson Davis was arrested on May 10, 1865 and spent two years in military confinement before being transferred to civil authorities. Eventually Davis was tried for treason, as there was not a connection between him and the assassination. [2]

Jefferson Davis was transferred to the civil authorities after two years due to the fact that the war was officially ended and the military courts were deemed illegal. The trial began on November 30, after several postponements, some due to the Johnson impeachment hearings. At the point of Davis’s bail there was an expectation that there would never be tried due to the focus on the impeachment hearing. [3] Davis’s main defense was that he was already being punished by the Fourteenth Amendment in the disenfranchisement clause. Davis made the point that the American people had chosen this punishment for him in lieu of any other measures of punishment. [4] The case was dropped with Johnsons complete amnesty proclamation December 25, 1868. [5]

Related Events

1865: Lincoln Assassinated, 1868: Johnson’s Amnesty Proclamations

Sources

[1] Nichols, Roy Franklin. “United States vs. Jefferson Davis, 1865-1869”, The American Historical Review, Vol. 31, No. 2, (January, 1926), 266-284 [JSTOR: <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-=8762%28192601%2931%3A2%3C266%3AU SVJD1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z accessed 12 November, 2006] [2]Watson, David K. “The Trial of Jefferson Davis: An Interesting Constitutional Question” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 24, No. 8. (June 1915)669-676 [JSTOR: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0044-0094%28191506%2924%3A8%3C669%3 ATTOJDA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23] [3] Nichols, “United States” [4] “Trial of Jeff Davis” New York Times (1857- current file) December 4, 1868, ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851-2003) [5] Nichols, “United States”


1868: Election of 1868

From Bensonwiki

Description

In the Election of 1868 General U S Grant is elected President. President Grant and Vice-President Schuyler Colfax defeated democrats Horatio Seymour and Francis P Blair. Grant won twenty six states in the election and 214 electoral votes, contrasted with Seymour’s eight states and eighty electoral votes. [1] Grant’s popular vote victory was considerably less than his electoral win, he won by only 306,000 out of over five million votes cast. For the first time, the African American vote was an important factor in deciding the election, with over 700,000 votes cast, with the majority presumably for Grant. Three southern states did not participate in this election, and six others were still under radical domination. [2]

Grants main issues in the campaign were condemning Johnson and the Democrats policy, advocating Radical reconstruction, payment of the national debt in gold. He was able to skirt the issue of black suffrage and tariffs. Seymour was in strong opposition to the program of Radical Reconstruction. [3] In the south, there is evidence of threatening the black voters to support a specific candidate, and sometimes termination of employment is used as leverage. The South also remained as politically organized as before the war, as can be seen in the party organization, and support of the Democrats. [4]

Related Events

Reconstruction Acts

Sources

[1] Kirshon, John W. Chronicle of America, (Chronicle Publications, 1989), 406 [2] Morris, Richard B. Encyclopedia of American History, (Harper Brothers Publishers, 1953), 249 [3] Ibid, 249 [4] “The Elections in the Southern States—The Prospect” New York Times (1857-current file): February 17, 1868; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851-2003)


1869: Inauguration of Ulysses S. Grant

From Bensonwiki

On March 4th, 1869, Washington D.C. witnessed a transfer of power from Johnson and his hated cabinet to Ulysses S. Grant as he was sworn in as President of the United States of America. Inauguration day dawned gray and rainy, yet during Grant’s procession to the Capital, the sky opened up and sun lit up the President in what many believed to be a portent of good events for the country. [1] Grant’s inauguration marked the largest assemblage of peoples for such an event as cheering crowds greeted the Civil War hero. [2] With such a dominant northern figure assuming the position of President, the south finally had to concede that the Union was a permanent fixture in America. [] In his inaugural address, Grant pledged to faithfully carry out all laws of the state, regardless of his personal stance on the nature of the law. Over half of his speech was dedicated to curtailing the national debt accumulated by the Civil War. Grant stated that in order, “To protect the national honor every dollar of the Government indebtedness should be paid in gold.” [4] Grant concluded his speech by encouraging the Christianization of Indians and seeking an immediate answer to the suffrage debate. [5] As Grant approached the office like a general, he assumed control of an America whose economic situation would vex him throughout his administration.[6]

Related Events

1868: Election of 1868

1868: Johnson's Impeachment

1869: Black Friday

1870: Fifteenth Amendment ratified

1861: Civil War

Sources

[1] William B. Hesseltine, Ulysses S. Grant: Politician, (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1935), 142-144.

[2] New York, New York, New York Observer and Chronicle, 11 March 1869. Online.

[3] William B. Hesseltine, Ulysses S. Grant: Politician, (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1935), 132.

[4] New York, New York, New York Observer and Chronicle, 11 March 1869. Online.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Richard Goldhurst, Many are the Hearts: The agony and the triumph of Ulysses S. Grant, (New York: Readers Digest Press, 1975), 93.


1869: Inauguration of Ulysses S. Grant

From Bensonwiki

On March 4th, 1869, Washington D.C. witnessed a transfer of power from Johnson and his hated cabinet to Ulysses S. Grant as he was sworn in as President of the United States of America. Inauguration day dawned gray and rainy, yet during Grant’s procession to the Capital, the sky opened up and sun lit up the President in what many believed to be a portent of good events for the country. [1] Grant’s inauguration marked the largest assemblage of peoples for such an event as cheering crowds greeted the Civil War hero. [2] With such a dominant northern figure assuming the position of President, the south finally had to concede that the Union was a permanent fixture in America. [] In his inaugural address, Grant pledged to faithfully carry out all laws of the state, regardless of his personal stance on the nature of the law. Over half of his speech was dedicated to curtailing the national debt accumulated by the Civil War. Grant stated that in order, “To protect the national honor every dollar of the Government indebtedness should be paid in gold.” [4] Grant concluded his speech by encouraging the Christianization of Indians and seeking an immediate answer to the suffrage debate. [5] As Grant approached the office like a general, he assumed control of an America whose economic situation would vex him throughout his administration.[6]

Related Events

1868: Election of 1868

1868: Johnson's Impeachment

1869: Black Friday

1870: Fifteenth Amendment ratified

1861: Civil War

Sources

[1] William B. Hesseltine, Ulysses S. Grant: Politician, (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1935), 142-144.

[2] New York, New York, New York Observer and Chronicle, 11 March 1869. Online.

[3] William B. Hesseltine, Ulysses S. Grant: Politician, (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1935), 132.

[4] New York, New York, New York Observer and Chronicle, 11 March 1869. Online.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Richard Goldhurst, Many are the Hearts: The agony and the triumph of Ulysses S. Grant, (New York: Readers Digest Press, 1975), 93.


1869: Black Friday

From Bensonwiki

During the first year of the Grant administration, the financial panic that came to be known as Black Friday, seized Wall-Street and wounded the economic status of the United States.[1] Orchestrated by speculators Gould and Fiske, the scheme involved buying as much gold as possible and setting their own price on the market. If the price of gold doubled, it would split the value of a companies greenbacks by half, and would result in a devalued currency.[2] The Wall-Street pair involved President Grant's brother-in-law in their plot, and used him as a means of influencing the President.[3] Moreover, the two had coerced Grant to place General Daniel Butterfield as head of New York sub-Treasury, who acted as co-conspirator in their plot. When Grant was out of telegraph contact, the two began buying up gold in an attempt to corner the market. The price of gold per ounce spiked to $162 before noon on Friday, September 24, 1869, while Butterfield did nothing to ameliorate this situation.[4] Eventually Grant learnt of Gould and Fiske’s plan, and ordered the secretary of the treasury to sell four million dollars in federal gold to level out the market. [5] By mid-afternoon, the price had plummeted and the panic was over; the effects, however, would take longer to subside. Speculators, local banks and investors were crippled, whilst credit simply ceased. Though the public thought Grant's involvment with Fiske and Gould as suspect, Grant denied conspiracy and claimed that he had been cleverly deceived.[6] This marked the first time when the Government had interceded on the part of the nation’s economy.[7]

Related Events

1837: Panic of 1837

1840: Independent Treasury Reform

1861: Circulation of "Greenbacks"

Sources


[1] New York, New York, New York Times, 15 November 1878. Online

[2] Richard Goldhurst, Many are the Hearts: The Agony and the Triumph of Ulysses S. Grant, (New York: Readers Digest Press, 1975), 94-95.

[3] John Y. Simon, The Personal Memoirs of Julia Dent Grant (Mrs. Ulysses S. Grant), (New York : Putnam, 1975), 182-183.

[4] Richard Goldhurst, Many are the Hearts: The Agony and the Triumph of Ulysses S. Grant, (New York: Readers Digest Press, 1975), 94-95.

[5] Jean Edward Smith, Grant, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 487-490.

[6] Atlanta, Georgia, The Atlanta, 21 December 1872. Online.

[7] Jean Edward Smith, Grant, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 487-490.


1869: First Professional Baseball Team

From Bensonwiki

During the Civil War, baseball had been a favorite pastime of Union and Confederate soldiers alike; breaking the monotony of the daily routine, and providing exercise and a distraction from the horrors of war. [1] By the war’s end in1865, players were eager to rush away from the battlefield and onto the baseball diamonds.[2] Following the war, men played for semi-professional clubs such as the New York Knickerbockers and the Yorkville Washington’s . [3] In 1869, with an average salary of $1,000 to $9,000, the Cincinnati Red Stockings became the first professionally paid baseball team in U.S. history.[4] During their 1869 season, the Cincinnati Red Stockings went undefeated and proved to be a formidable foe to all the other amateur and semi-professional teams. Following their season, they were greeted as celebrities in Cincinnati, were hobnobbed with President Grant in the capital, and utilized a brand new innovation that allowed them to play teams on the pacific coast: the transcontinental railroad. Soon, other cities like Chicago and New York formed their own professional baseball clubs. This was an important shift in that baseball was no longer merely limited to being a fraternal activity, it was now a means of entertainment. Moreover, this emphasized a pendulum swing towards a nation that was more keen on a society of leisure. Professional Baseball provided an escape from the daily grind and was widely embraced by the working classes and saw the emergence of a new concept: widespread sectionalism based on loyalty to a sports team. [5]

Related Events

1839: Roots of baseball

1869: The First Transcontinental Railroad

1861: Civil War

Sources

[1] George B. Kirsch, Baseball in Blue and Gray: The National Pastime During the Civil War, (Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 2003), 31.

[2] Ibid., 113.

[3] New York, New York, New York Times, 6 February 1916. Online.

[4] Chicago, Illinois, Chicago Tribune, 18 February 1870.Online.

[5] Benjamin G. Rader, Baseball: A History of America’s Game, (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 2002), 29-38.


1869: The First Transcontinental Railroad

From Bensonwiki

On May 10, 1869, the final spike of the nation’s first transcontinental railroad was driven into the ground at Promontory Summit, Utah. [1] Nearly 1,800 miles in length, and built largely by Chinese and Irish immigrants, the railroad spanned from Sacramento California to Omaha Nebraska.[2] With the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862, construction was headed by the Central Pacific Railroad Company in the west, and the Union Pacific Railroad Company in the east.[3] With the companies competing to see which could lay the most track, the workers raced to meet each other in the middle, and the line was assembled in a mere six years. [4] On the tenth of May, 1869, the ceremonial golden spike, valued at $350, was driven into place with the inscription, “May God continue the unity of our country as this railroad unites the two great oceans of the world.” [5] A telegraph wire was attached to the golden spike, and when struck, the cable “DONE” was transmitted across the country signifying the completion of the rail. Across the nation, the event was celebrated with ringing church bells, parades and lavish parties. [6] Though he would die some 4 years before its completion, President Abraham Lincoln had long been an avid supporter of a transcontinental line and had been influential in its creation. [7] With this mass transit system spanning half the nation, public lands would be distributed, trade would flourish, and communication would increase as a result. [8]

Related Events

1841: Opening Oregon Trail

Sources

[1] John Debo Galloway, The First Transcontinental Railroad : Central Pacific, Union Pacific. (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1983), 4.; Stephen E. Ambrose, Nothing Like it in the World: The Men who Built the Transcontinental Railroad, 1863-1869, (New York : Simon & Schuster, 2000), 352.

[1] John Debo Galloway, The First Transcontinental Railroad : Central Pacific, Union Pacific. (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1983), 3-4; Stephen E. Ambrose, Nothing Like it in the World: The Men who Built the Transcontinental Railroad, 1863-1869, (New York : Simon & Schuster, 2000), 18.

[1] John Debo Galloway, The First Transcontinental Railroad : Central Pacific, Union Pacific, (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1983), 96.

[1] Stephen E. Ambrose, Nothing Like it in the World: The Men who Built the Transcontinental Railroad, 1863-1869, (New York : Simon & Schuster, 2000), 20.

[1] New York, New York, New York Times, 16 May 1869. Online.

[1] Stephen E. Ambrose, Nothing Like it in the World: The Men who Built the Transcontinental Railroad, 1863-1869, (New York : Simon & Schuster, 2000), 364.

[1] Ibid., 18.

[1] New York, New York, The Round Table, 23 January 1869. Online.


1869: National Woman Suffrage Association

From Bensonwiki

When the 13th amendment passed and granted freedom to African-American slaves, feminists Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton saw this as a step in the right direction.[1] It was on 15 May 1869, under these two leaders, that the National Woman Suffrage Association was formed. The N.W.S.A was formed around a militant, hard-line approach to feminism. The key position of the association was the passage of the 16th Amendment, one granting women the right to vote. Stanton and Anthony worked hard to convert the conservative members of their organization into the aggressive feminist view they championed. With a primary base in New York City, the association held weekly meetings, whilst Anthony, Stanton and other prominent feminists traveled the country holding conventions. [2] Though the N.W.S.A vehemently believed in the woman’s right to vote, they did not agree in universal suffrage. Certain races and ignorant people should not be granted the vote; also, an educational qualification should be in place to drive of those uninformed voters.[3] With hundreds attending the conferences around the country, men and women included, Stanton and Anthony spread their message to the nation.[4] This association marks the first organized feminist movement in the U.S.[5]

Related Events

1851: "Ain't I a Woman" Speech Given by Sojourner Truth

1865: Thirteenth Amendment Passed

Sources

[1] Ellen Carol DuBois, Feminism and Suffrage : The Emergence of an Independent Women's Movement in America, 1848-1869, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978), 54, 190.

[2] Ibid., 189-193.

[3] New York, New York, New York Times, 21 January 1869. Online.

[4] New York, New York, The Independent, 22 July 1869. Online.

[5] Ellen Carol DuBois, Feminism and Suffrage : The Emergence of an Independent Women's Movement in America, 1848-1869, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978), 190.


1870: Readmission of Virginia, Mississippi, Texas

From Bensonwiki

Virginia, Texas, and Mississippi were the last of the ten secessionist states to reenter the Union besides Georgia. They were readmitted within months of each other, at the very beginning of 1870 according to the Third Reconstruction Act of 1867. [1] Even though Virginia was not admitted into the Union until January 26th, 1870, Republicans were ready to begin the election processes as early as 1868, but the military government was not enthusiastic, thus forcing Virginia to have to wait until the next session of Congress to be readmitted. Texas’ readmission process was also slowed down because of their concern over Confederate soldiers not being given the right to vote in state elections. Yet, on March 30th, 1870 the official bill approving their admission was passed. It was only a month earlier that, Mississippi was admitted as a state on behalf of Congress on February 23rd, 1870. [2] Even though all three states differed greatly from one another, it is evident that they were all opposed to the disfranchising and disqualification laws which would prevent ex-Confederates and Confederate sympathizers from voting in elections. [3] Clearly, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia were still loyal to the Confederacy and its statutes, even though they felt the pressures of readmission. All three states varied according to their demographics and sources of economic profit, yet they were forced to confront the same realities such as every man’s right to full equality and representation under the law—a controversial and painful task.



Related Events: 1865: Thirteenth Amendment Passed; 1868: Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment; 1870: Fifteenth Amendment ratified



Footnotes: [1] Rembert W. Patrick, The Reconstruction of the Nation, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 140-164 [2] Ibid,, 375-398 [3] Robert Selph Henry, The Story of Reconstruction, (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1951), 375-398


Sources: [1]Robert Selph Henry, The Story of Reconstruction, (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1951), 375-398 [2]Rembert W. Patrick, The Reconstruction of the Nation, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 140-164 [3] "Weekly News Summary", (Christian Union, 1870-1893), 1,4 (January 1870), 60


1870: First Negros in Congress

From Bensonwiki

In 1870, Hiram R. Revels became a Mississippi senator on February 26th and Joseph H. Rainey was elected as a South Carolina congressman on October 19th. Certainly, 1870 was a significant year for it was the first time that a Negro senator and congressman were elected in American history. [1] Hiram R. Revels, Methodist preacher, was appointed to the Senate for a one year term by the Republican caucus. A monthly magazine article written in April 1870 claims that “one of the most extraordinary single results of our great civil revolution was seen when Hon. Hiram R. Revels… took his