Read an Excerpt
Soldiers in the Army of Freedom
The 1st Kansas Colored, the Civil War's First African American Combat Unit
By Ian Michael Spurgeon UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA PRESS
Copyright © 2014 University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Publishing Division of the University
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8061-4721-5
CHAPTER 1
BLEEDING KANSAS
The perplexing question will be Negroes.
The constitutional convention was in its second week. Much had been accomplished, a remarkable achievement given the vast differences among the thirty-six delegates. They had agreed that all political issues would be shelved until their common interest of securing Kansas as a free state in the Union was assured. Even so, one major obstacle threatened to derail the convention and the free-state movement.
"The perplexing question will be Negroes," a correspondent to the New York Times told eastern audiences from the rural territory of Kansas, "and I think the people will be called upon to vote directly on the issue of allowing free blacks to reside in the State." All of the convention delegates opposed slavery, though for different reasons. The Topeka Convention was the Free State Party's attempt to form a state government, a rival to the proslavery administration in place at Lecompton, formed a few months earlier through voter fraud and ballot stuffing.
The Topeka Convention represented an effort to unite antislavery forces in Kansas. The delegates agreed that slavery should not be allowed in Kansas, but they could not agree on what to do with free blacks. The divide split New England abolitionists from midwestern conservatives. Some abolitionists wanted no race-based distinctions, but they were a distinct minority. Most free-state settlers had no concern for blacks. Migrants from the Midwest and Upper South exhibited a prejudice against African Americans surpassed only by their hatred of the institution of slavery. They supported the "black law," a prohibition against any black migration into Kansas. Another New York writer noted that many "who are known as Free-State men are not anti-Slavery in our Northern acceptation of the word. They are more properly negro haters who vote Free-State to keep negroes out, free or slave."
The Topeka delegates were deadlocked over the "black law." And so, on this day, October 31, 1855, a commanding figure in the free-state movement took the floor to settle whether Kansas would open its borders to any black person. He stood about six feet tall and usually covered his lean body with ill-fitting clothes, sloppy by even the rough standards of the West. No one could call him attractive. His wild hair crowned a prominent forehead and intricately carved face with deep-set, piercing eyes. Eastern settlers in the Kansas Territory understandably found this strange man obnoxious, but no one denied his power as a public speaker. James Henry Lane was a forty-one-year-old former Democratic congressman from Indiana who came to Kansas to make his career in the territory's virgin political landscape. His quick rise to power in the fre-estate ranks was due to his experience in national politics and his stump-speaking abilities. He loved politics and thrived in an atmosphere of speeches and backdoor deals.
Many Kansans did not trust him. Abolitionists—those who opposed slavery for moral reasons and desired a proactive end to the institution—looked at his history and considered him a major contributor to the chaos in Kansas. In 1854, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, Lane had voted for the Kansas-Nebraska Act, one of the most significant and controversial pieces of legislation in American history. It repealed a thirty-four-year-old law that prohibited slavery in western territories north of latitude 36°30"—a line extending from Missouri's southern border through the vast western expanses. The Kansas-Nebraska Act opened up all western territories to slavery, provided the residents approved. The new state's slaveholding status would be up for a vote. Supporters called this principle "popular sovereignty."
The Democratic Party promoted the concept as a truly democratic method of handling the question of slavery in the territories. Illinois senator Stephen Douglas wrote the Kansas-Nebraska Bill and used all of his political ability and force of personality to put popular sovereignty into action, not because he wanted to expand slavery, but to gain necessary Southern support for organizing the western territories for railroad interests. The act sparked not only a tremendous upheaval in American party politics, but a transition in the battle over slavery from the legislative halls and courtrooms to the western plains. Anxious to determine Kansas's fate with ballots, and bullets if necessary, Northerners and Southerners began flocking to the territory in 1854. Lane, who declined to run for reelection in Indiana in 1854, was in Kansas by April 1855.
The invitation for settlers to determine the slave issue in Kansas polarized the fledgling territorial electorate. With a sympathetic president, Franklin Pierce, in office, proslavery settlers established a territorial government in the town of Lecompton through voting fraud. Free-state settlers boycotted this government's activities and created a rival movement, claiming that they had the support of a majority of settlers, and represented the true interests of the territory and true popular sovereignty. This movement culminated in the creation of a Free State Party and a constitutional convention in Topeka in October. Now Lane was its president.
As the New York Times correspondent noted, not all advocates for a free state of Kansas cared for black Americans. A large number of antislavery Kansans, and antislavery Americans, opposed slavery for reasons unrelated to the well-being of the slave. Some saw slavery as an impediment to regional and national development; others believed it promoted slothful behavior and crippled the work ethic seen by Northerners as necessary for a growing country. Some opposed it on the grounds that it harmed white Americans by limiting their options for economic advancement. For most Northerners, however, that hostility did not translate into advocacy for the destruction of slavery. They were content to leave the institution alone as long as it, and blacks, remained in the South.
On the fledgling territory's eastern border was Missouri, a state that in 1850 had over 87,000 slaves. By 1860 that number had ballooned to nearly 115,000. As many as 20,000 slaves lived in counties that bordered Kansas during that period. The boundary between Missouri and Kansas was an imaginary line, not a geographical feature. The realization that fugitive or freed slaves would seek refuge in a neighboring free state worried many Kansas settlers. An influx of blacks meant potential interstate conflict with Missouri slaveholders, racial competition for jobs, and the possibility of social interaction.
Long-standing presuppositions of black inferiority were common among settlers from the Midwest, a region heavily influenced by Southern culture and migration. Even some Kansans who voiced sincere concern for blacks did not know how slaves would act if freed. "To any individual who would dare to utter or give vent to any Idea of the kind that the Negro is not of the human race," settler Robert Atkins Tovey declared, "in Short that he is not a man but that he distinctly & properly belongs to the baboon or monkey tribe to displace all this nonsense & trash from the rational mind it is only requisite to become a little a[c]quainted with them & you will not only find that they are men but many of them possessed of great Sagacity." Nonetheless, Tovey continued, "this the Author is ready to acknowle[d]ge that it is possible so to grind down, crush, Iron & whip the poor African that if he was to be set at liberty in that wretched state the good policy of such proceeding might be questioned. Let a poor fellow of that description look at once goaded laceratin [sic] & full of revenge he might become a terror to the neighborhood & an object of dread." For many convention delegates, the best policy was to keep slavery and blacks out of Kansas altogether.
Antiblack attitudes were not powerful enough to push through a black exclusion law at the convention. Abolitionists stood in the way. To save the convention's efforts and promote the shared goal of creating a free-state constitution, Lane offered the following resolution: "That the Delegates nominated to this Convention, be and hereby are instructed to use their exertings to submit the question of excluding Free Negroes from the Territory, to the people of the Territory, on the day the constitution is submitted, their decision to operate as instructions to the first Legislature upon that subject." If the delegates could not decide whether to exclude free blacks from Kansas, they could agree to let the white people of the state decide by popular vote. To save the convention from deadlock, Lane's resolution put the "black law" question to the masses. The resolution passed, so the voters of Kansas would decide the future of black residency in Kansas alongside their vote on the Topeka Constitution.
The concession was a bitter pill for humanitarian settlers to swallow. George W. Brown, editor of the Herald of Freedom acknowledged that "here we are willing our neighbors, who agree with us in the main, but differ on this question—and who we have conceded are in the majority—shall fix the matter up to suit themselves," but stated that he and his fellow easterners objected "to their placing us in a position which will require us to stultify ourself [sic], or give the lie to our entire past history." Nonetheless, it was necessary for Free State Party unity.
On December 15, 1855, free-state Kansans went to the polls to accept or reject the Topeka Constitution and vote on black exclusion. Proslavery settlers generally boycotted the vote, leading to an absurdly disproportionate tally: 1,731 votes for the free-state constitution, 46 against. The referendum on the black law generated a bit more division but proved that antiblack sentiment was dominant in Kansas: black exclusion passed 1,287 to 453.
The vote for the "black law" illustrated racial attitudes in territorial Kansas, although it had no practical effect on the African American presence there. For one, slaveholders who migrated to Kansas with their property ignored free-state efforts to enact territorial laws. After all, proslavery officials dominated the territorial government in Lecompton. Second, some militant abolitionists began raiding Missouri farms to help slaves escape into the territory. More importantly, the vote held no legal weight. The Topeka government would not officially exist unless both houses of Congress accepted the Topeka Constitution. Although Lane expressed confidence in gaining Northern Democratic approval, many powerful people in Washington considered the Topeka movement illegal. Indeed, Lane's attempt to personally petition the U.S. Senate to pass the Topeka Constitution in the spring of 1856 resulted in a humiliating defeat. The Pierce administration and many congressional leaders recognized only the proslavery government in Lecompton, Kansas, as the territory's rightful authority.
The debate over black migration to Kansas in 1855 and 1856 was more about establishing a white society than about handling an existing migration problem. While some settlers did bring their slaves into the territory, and some abolitionists helped Missouri fugitive slaves into Kansas, estimates of African Americans in territorial Kansas were relatively small. In 1857, one source claimed there were less than 350 African Americans out of a total territorial population of over 47,000. Another writer estimated that Kansas had 500 slaves in 1859. The 1860 census listed 627 blacks in Kansas Territory, only 0.6 percent of the Kansas population.
The "black law" never went into effect. Even if it had, it may have enjoyed only limited success. Antiblack laws in other Northern states, such as Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio, did not eliminate the presence of African Americans, though they did restrict black civil rights. The referendum marked the height of antiblack sentiment in Kansas, for as the battle over slavery and Kansas statehood dragged on, the more radical free-state Kansans became.
During the summer of 1856 free-state and proslavery forces in Kansas waged a battle for control. Murders, ambushes, and military engagements earned the territory the moniker "Bleeding Kansas." For some abolitionists, the violence was a necessary purging of the sins of slavery. Ohioan John Brown epitomized this fanaticism, personally carrying out one of the territory's most shocking atrocities in May 1856 when he and a handful of followers murdered five proslavery settlers. Men like Brown helped sensationalize the conflict and inspired proslavery propaganda.
Most free-state settlers did not engage in a crusade to end slavery. They opposed proslavery rule in Kansas because it defied the antislavery majority. And they feared that the Lecompton government was kept in power by proslavery Missourians who invaded the territory to influence the political and military situation with no intention of settlement. Still, these free-state Kansans separated themselves from abolitionism. "I know very well that numbers of kind hearted well disposed men at the north are made to believe that all the difficulties in Kanzas [sic] are caused by the factious movements of a party of 'fanatics,' 'abolitionists,'" one Lawrence, Kansas, resident wrote to his father. "This has been often true but is as often false. The fact is a majority of the citizens of Lawrence are western men, former democrats of the Pierce and Douglas stripe, which is true of a large majority of the inhabitants of the Territory, and where nothing but the 'Sack,' the 'Sword,' the 'Flamie' [sic] have dissevered from their strong party alliance."
The conflict for Kansas statehood drew attention across the country and welcome support from Northern states. Public relations campaigns through letters, newspaper editorials, and speeches by leading free-state Kansans (Lane in particular) drew in financial, political, and manpower aid. During speaking appearances in the North in 1856, Lane emphasized the conservative nature of the Free State Party and argued that the interests of white men were at stake. In Cleveland, Ohio, he rallied a crowd of thousands into excitement by painting an image of slaveholders denying Northern white Americans justice in the territories. Slavery had to be opposed in Kansas, he said, to save the future of hardworking white men. "The laboring white man could not live in a Slave State," Lane told the crowd, "where the grades may be defined thus—1st, the slaveholder; 2d, the slave; 3d, the free negro; 4th, last and lowest, the laboring white man." In Lane's worldview, slavery elevated blacks above common white laborers.
In Chicago, Lane attacked critics who claimed that free-state Kansans were abolitionists or "nigger worshippers." Holding aloft a copy of the Kansas territorial laws adopted by the Lecompton government, he read provisions dictating legal punishment for various crimes. "According to the Kansas code ... if a person kidnapped a white child, the utmost penalty was six months in jail—if he stole a nigger baby, the penalty was Death. Who worshipped niggers, and slave nigger babies at that? To kidnap a white child into slavery—six months in jail—kidnap a nigger into Freedom—Death!" This rhetoric appealed to an audience steeped in white supremacist ideology. Kansas was undergoing a battle over slavery, but African Americans were marginalized by both sides.
Still, conservative free-state settlers could not afford to disassociate themselves from abolitionists. Powerful northeastern groups helped the free-state cause with men, supplies, money, and weapons. Organizations like the New England Emigrant Aid Company, the Massachusetts Committee, and the New York Kansas Committee contributed thousands of dollars for rifles, most notably the new breech-loading Sharps rifle, which outmatched most muskets in both accuracy and speed of loading. The weapons were shipped secretly to free-state communities, some marked in boxes labeled "books" or "Bibles." The alliance between New England and midwestern settlers did not change racial attitudes, but did contribute to a weakening in white supremacy rhetoric.
By 1858, it seemed clear that the U.S. Congress would never accept the Free State constitution. The proslavery Lecompton Constitution had strong support from the president and Democrats in the Senate, but failed to pass congressional muster, leaving the territory in limbo. Free State officials then arranged for a new convention in Leavenworth to approve a second constitution, one that would overcome the faults of the Topeka document.
The "black law" was noticeably absent this time. Conservative delegates grew frustrated at the constitution's racial ambiguity. With no black exclusion, they worried that free blacks in Kansas would gain rights equal to white men. In particular, the constitution's section on "Elective Franchise" limited suffrage to males but made no racial distinctions. "I sign this Constitution under protest believing that a majority of my constituents are opposed to negro suffrage—under the article 'Education' which appears to permit coloured children to go to common schools with white children," delegate A. W. McCauslin declared. "On the subject of negro immigration I am not decided what is the will of my constituents." He then stated, "The political exeigency [sic] of times imper[a]tively demand a new Constitution and una[ni]mity in the approval of the same, I regard as necessary to the welfare of the people of this Territory." Four other delegates united in a similar qualifying statement. "We sign this Constitution under protest for the reason that we believe a majority of our constituents are opposed to negro suffrage and the Emigration of free negroes to the State of Kansas." One delegate announced that he intended to interpret a restriction against black voting rights in the Constitution even though it lacked specific language: "I sign this Constitution believing that it does not extend the right of suffrage to negroes."
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Soldiers in the Army of Freedom by Ian Michael Spurgeon. Copyright © 2014 University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Publishing Division of the University. Excerpted by permission of UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
