Immediately following the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a wave of settlers began pouring into the territory. They first came from Missouri, then from the mid-western states such as Indiana and Illinois. Some were sent by the group known as the New England Emigrant Aid Company. These people were seen by the South as an abolitionist movement in the west. From the early stages of settlement, Free Soilers and pro-slavery settlers clashed over lands, towns, water, etc., and there was little law and order. Although a provisional governor was assigned to the territory by President Pierce, not much was done to curb to violence between the two sides.

John Brown saw himself as a tool that God Himself was going to use to wipe out slavery in the American South. Following his raid in Kansas in 1856, he had been devising a plan to purify the entire South through an armed slave rebellion that he himself would lead. John Brown believed that "without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" (MacPherson, 117). Also, with all of the recent victories for Southern slave-holders (Kansas-Nebraska Act, Dred Scott decision, etc.) Brown thought that "violent counterstroke was the only answer" (Ibid., 117).

The idea that states could and should secede from the Union was not a concept brought about in the 1850’s. As early as 1828, talk of secession could be heard in South Carolina and other Southern states. And several times prior to 1860, South Carolina did indeed attempt, though unsuccessfully, to leave the United States and form its own independent government. But the times following John Brown’s raid were the most tense, and the possibility of secession was turning into more of a reality than just an abstract notion.

So far, we have seen how the issue of slavery, whether directly or covertly, divided the nation on many other issues concerning territories and laws. The 1850’s was probably the most defining decade in determining the fate of the nation, with much of the controversy surrounding slavery being addressed in the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Law, the Dred Scott decision, Bleeding Kansas, and John Brown’s Raid. But there was yet another issue, based on states’ rights and economic power, that came to surface in the 1820’s. It was the issue of taxes and tariffs.

The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 paved the way for United States expansion by more than doubling the size of the country. People from all states rushed westward to start a new and hopefully successful life. As the territories became highly populated, the issue of new states being admitted into the Union arose, and with this came the question of whether slavery would be allowed in newly admitted states.

Following the Mexican War, questions arose as to the future of the territories that were acquired from Mexico. These territories included California, New Mexico and Arizona, among others. The main concern was statehood and whether slavery would be allowed in the new states. Obviously, the South in general was all for southern states’ rights and slavery expansion, and they advocated admitting the new territories as slave states. The North, on the other hand, was not as quick to want to give up the possibility of acquiring another free state for the advancement of the economy. The debate that ensued was one of the most significant and hard-fought debate that led to the Civil War.

In the years following the Compromise of 1850, questions and controversy began to surface over the issue of slavery in the Nebraska Territory west of Missouri. In 1853 the House failed to outlaw slavery in Nebraska though it was officially north of the Missouri Compromise line. Thus, as more and more people settled in the area, the issue of slavery there became heavily debated.

In the early 1820’s, Americans were invited by the Mexican government, which was pushing for development, to settle and farm on the borderland of Texas. After more and more Americans settled (around 20,000 Americans and 4,000 slaves), a push for independence from Mexico ensued. After a short war between the settlers and Mexico, President Jackson recognized Texas’ independence which thus became known as the Republic of Texas (sound familiar?).

In the introduction I stated that slavery was not necessarily the direct cause of the Civil War, nor was the War fought to end or preserve that institution. The question of slavery can be found, however, as a basis of many other issues that arose prior to the War. Thus, to ignore slavery and how the issue was addressed in the late 1700’s would be unjust when the time comes to examine the controversial issues and events that occurred during the mid 1800’s.

The topic of Lincoln's thoughts on the issues of slavery and race is one that surfaces often on this site. There seem to be so many angles by which to approach his views for the purposes of both disparagement and commendation. Are these criticisms or acclamations warranted if laid out in total isolation of each other? Or is it most appropriate, using the benefit of historical hindsight, to balance the scales with objective critique of Lincoln's ever so evolving standpoints on race that include both positive and negative assessment?