I'm not really sure how first period feels about this, but in fifth period I know there was some confusion on the Lecompton Constitution, and I left class feeling like it wasn't totally cleared up. If anyone else is still confused, here's the basic situation:
In 1855, thousands of pro-slavery ruffians from Missouri poured into Kansas from the border so that they could cast their votes and turn Kansas into a slave state. This was a success, and the vote was overwhelmingly pro-slavery. Since most of the Kansas residents at the time were free-soilers, there was widespread outrage and a guerrilla war ensued all throughout the year 1856.
By 1857, Kansas finally had enough people (mainly free-soilers) to apply for statehood by popular sovereignty. This meant that power was now shifting over to the anti-slavery forces. However, the Southerners refused to give up so quickly, and they held a convention at Lecompton (a town on the Kansas River) and produced the Lecompton Constitution.
This constitution was particularly tricky, because voters were not given the choice to vote either for or against it. Rather, they could vote to approve the constitution along with slavery, or to approve it without slavery. So either way, the Constitution was going to get passed. But even if the free-soiler majority voted to prohibit slavery, the constitution itself protected the slave owners who were already living in Kansas. This greatly angered the free-soilers, and many of them refused to even vote. As a result, the pro-slavery forces approved the constitution, with slavery.
In late 1857, the constitution rose to the level of the federal government, to be approved in Washington. At the time, President Pierce's presidency had just come to an end, and James Buchanan was stepping up to the job. Buchanan was strongly under Southern influence, and proceeded to put all of his energy into the Lecompton issue. He and the notorious Stephen A. Douglas fought tirelessly for democratic principles, resulting in a new compromise: that the entire Lecompton Constitution would be opened to a popular vote. The free-soilers then rushed in to vote against it, and they achieved a majority over the pro-slavery inhabitants, meaning that the Lecompton Constitution was done for.
This was so helpful! During class I thought the constitution was proslavery and then antislavery and proslavery and it was just all bad, but this really cleared things up! Thanks:)
ReplyDeleteThis was so helpful! During class I thought the constitution was proslavery and then antislavery and proslavery and it was just all bad, but this really cleared things up! Thanks:)
ReplyDeleteThanks Anneliese! This helped clear things up greatly. Just as a side note and from what I understand, the anti-slavery legislation elected in Kansas was also making their own constitution but the pro-slavery forces finishes their's (which is the Lecompton Constitution) first and sends it to the president. It was accepted by the president but then was rejected by Congress. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteThanks Anneliese this helped me a lot! I think it's also interesting to note that the South had more trouble getting people to move Kansas, because many of the Southerners of slavery couldn't just pick up their things and move. They had to worry about their plantations at home. In contrast, the Northerners found it easier to move because some didn't have such great ties to their land.
ReplyDeleteThank you Anneliese for clarifying because I too was very confused about the Leocompton Constitution. I had thought that it was pro-slavery, because of all the nonsense going on in Kansas at the time.
ReplyDeleteThe one question I have (thanks by the way) is why was this such a big thing overall. I know bleeding Kansas is one of the reasons why war began but what was the immediate reason? Was it just another example about how slavery was an issue that could not be compromised?
ReplyDelete