Bleeding Kansas: “Frontier Politics and Rhetoric”

Bleeding Kansas: “Frontier Politics and Rhetoric”

            Charles Sumner’s speech, dated May 19^th 1856 “the crime against Kansas” brutally criticized Senator Andrew Butler. Sumner ridiculed Senator Butler for preceding stoke on slavery and “subsequent incoherent phases”.

Furthermore, Massachusetts’ senator hinted at infidelity (adultery): claiming Butler vowed allegiance to slavery. The Southerners developed enthusiasm towards Sumner’s purported allegations. Consequently, Butlers’ relative and congressmen physically attacked Sumner. Southerner’s applauded Brooks for southern delegation defence. Defiantly, Northerners criticized the attack terming it free speech infringement, fittingly dubbed “Bleeding Sumner” by Republicans. Besides, Kansas newly instituted territory experienced hostility and violence based on southern and northern contradicting ideologies. Resultantly, “free state partisans” and proslavery struggled for Kansas control through the Congress. The Brooks-Sumner affair was a crucial stepping stone towards 1850s succession politics. The “Kansas-Nebraska Act” in addition to the associated Violence Acts was crucial in the prevention of American culture breakage.

Analyzing the “Bleeding Kansa Rhetoric”, there are arguably two contradictory perspectives. First, the proslavery and “free state factions” apply sovereignty and legitimacy language to demonstrate Northern and Southern agenda. Secondly, it demonstrates the opposing connotative notions of “legitimate authority”. Proslavery sympathizers petitioned territorial and federal law compliance. The democrats proposed revolutionary principal supporting majority law. Free state and proslavery advocates illustrated sovereignty interpretation and claimed differently. The “proslavery faction” authority was based on a supposed federal mandate.  Furthermore, those who disregarded conservative law and proslavery rule experienced proslavery justice.  According to Shannon (21), other than a majority vote, Free State derived power from delegitimizing opposition election.

The Kansa-Nebraska Act repealed the “Missouri Compromise”. The compromise allowed popular sovereignty to control slave related decisions. Most of the writers based the “bleeding Kansa” allegation on abolitionist resistance through southern slavery. Similarly, historians suppose that Kansas turmoil effected from ideological differences on slavery perspectives. The rhetoric relied not only on racial and slavery language but sovereignty and freedom ideologies (Hunbury 16). The writers aptly claim the Kansas ostensible division over slavery extension between southerners and northerners; however, they opposed territorial legislative legality. Meaning, the confrontation arose from authority struggle rather than existential slavery debate.

Sumner’s speech “the crime against Kansas” anticipated supporting the territorial anti-slavery arrangements in Kansas. The anti-slavery and proslavery factions attacked each other. According to Woods (125), the “Bleeding Kansa contestation” was more about power struggle than abolition debate. Bleeding Kansa struggled for political liberties. Brook unearthed legitimate intention following the ideological divergence. From the conflict commencement, both sides claimed legitimate authority over Kansas. Furthermore, national politics, economics, race prevalence, among others contributed to “Bleeding Kansas” conflict. Nevertheless, these factors elucidate no purpose following the “southern and northern” divergence.

The “Missouri compromise” preceded the slavery status congressional jurisdiction of the new state Kansas, further petitioning congress union admittance as a slave nation. Consequently, this ignited a protest with Northern politics claiming power balance distress between South and north. Besides Washington support, Kansas federal agents authoritatively supported proslavery programme. According to Shannon (29), the military, marshals and federal judges’ support to the “free state party” suppressed the proslavery party’s opposition further reinforcing claim to authority. For example, Samuel Lecompte, the “U.S District Court Chief Justice” regimented “free states newspaper” obliteration and Free State leaders’ arrest.  The proslavery press frequently printed accounts on federal and state authorities’ attacks to validate the significance of proslavery laws.  Fright resulted in law enactment in alignment with “proslavery party’s” justice interpretation. The laws intended to secure Africa American’s enslavement and suppress Free State supporters. As a result, abolitionists stole slaves. “Slave owners” and allies called for human property protection. Kansas proslavery advocates realized this demand.  The “free party” rejected the legitimacy of the Kansas legislature to shun proslavery party authority.

In contrast, the proslavery party alleged “New England Emigrant Aid Society” (NEEAS) involvement in Free states rebellion advocacy. Newspapers disclosed participation of companies by “parading daily, armed with sharp rifles, with the sworn objective of resisting the execution of the law”, while “the bogus Topeka legislature” became seasonal. Consequently, the proslavery party demanded conventional law and order in response. The “proslavery party” branded themselves the “law and order party”. Later, John Calhoun referred to Free State government as of revolutionary and treasonable nature.  Besides democratic authority discredit, proslavery party instilled militant anarchical fear.

The proslavery democrats and territorial legislature supported proslavery candidates based on individual partisan interpretation. They claimed the prevalence of proslavery candidates in the territorial elections. Otherwise, the “proslavery party” legitimate mandate would be impossible. James Buchman also admitted the “Lecompton Constitution” passing was not unanimous. The “proslavery party” interpretation of popular sovereignty assumed principled decisions by the party. According to Hanbury (7), the territorial government enemies were determined to defy the congress authority and refused to vote the delegates.

Proslavery party agents advocated for Free State’s disenfranchisement.  Among the Northerners, violence was frequent while the Southerners discouraged violence. Both representatives advocated for a territorial ballot vote in Missouri. String fellow schemed for forceful election rigging. Based on such rhetoric, proslavery party accounted for the Kansas confusion.  Through proslavery sympathizers, George smith avoided national law violation. From the Democrats’ perspective, “Kansas outrages” infiltrated the people’s hearts making an anticipated impression. Despite the radical factions’ voter fraud advocacy, previous advocates respond employed different propaganda. Even though democrats advocated for voter fraud, sovereignty became part of the national proposal, exceptionally displaying the political punditry. During “1856 democratic convention”, Democratic Party committed to Kansas constitutional reforms and union admission “with or without slavery” in accordance with the majority will (Woods 119). At the convention, Buchman’s prediction on Kansa conflict defunct with congress legislation with respect to domestic slavery. He affirmed the “party’s pledge” claiming people themselves can terminate slavery. Consequently, “proslavery sympathizers” supported popular sovereignty.

According to Woods (128), the free party believed their exclusion from the sovereignty was unjustified and required territorial influence disclaimer, and remained justified to structure their government. Meaning other than own government formation, the people of Kansas couldn’t have escaped despotism. The “free party” believed the popular sovereignty concept. Besides, the notion supposed that illegitimate majority votes illegitimate the government. To secure their sovereignty interpretation, the Free State advocated for territorial election participation of 1857. Before the outcome, the “weekly news democrat” claimed how proslavery party deceitfully carried everything before them. However, the “free state party” surprisingly prevailed over proslavery partisans. Most abolition papers used the incident for their peculiar view promotion. The congress democratic majority and “Free State” election boycott enabled popular sovereignty to be converted into Kansas slave trade pretext.

Southerners effectively sensationalized their disenfranchisement and the consequent oppression that promoted their victimization. Whenever proslavery asserted proslavery law, free staters majored on perceived oppression to promote party agenda. Meaning, proslavery party authoritatively perpetrated partisan violence to subjugate opposition. Proslavery leaders advocated party restraint. Kansas moderates got disillusioned by law disregard by Free states as circulated in proslavery propaganda. By 1858, the “free party” ruled the territory changing the proslavery rhetoric. The two parties implied similar language of sovereignty and legitimacy. They, however, differed on the interpretation of sovereignty or legitimacy in addition to party support and opposition critics. Bleeding Kansa exercise shaped the sectional debate of the 1850s and political punditry. Since then democrats would throw water on Kansa fire as Republicans lob oil. The event consumed America politically as evident in Bleeding Sumner and Lawrence’s sack. Bleeding Kansa acts as a window into 1850s political psyche and a terrifying moment of American development. The actual assault provides information concerning social customs and political divisions of the day. Northern politicians condemned the physical attack while southern reaction condoned the attack. Preston Brooks was nurtured in a frontier environment resulting in his violent reaction to Sumner speech. On the contrary, Sumner practised his democratic rights of free speech.