Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 12th, 2018, 08:24 AM   #1
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2017
From: United States
Posts: 161
Kansas-Missouri and the North South divide


Ok so this is a topic I've had in mind for awhile, but basically it always seemed significant to me that when the divisions were occurring during the US civil war, such as in the form of Union and Confederacy when new states were entering their status as a free or slave state was often contested.

So when Kansas and Missouri basically themselves were contested, it seemed to indicate that this was a critical majorly unique point in time and place, for the parties involved, and only settled with the Kansas-Missouri compromise.

I guess what I want to know is, since with Historum we have the benefits of communication of others is maybe where and how this precise divide takes place. Is it between Kansas and Missouri or is it between Kansas somewhere and Missouri somewhere, is it based on slavery and old issues or are those gone and we talk meaningfully of similar people with similar interests on both sides.

I guess I'm just asking simply is whether there is a way to frame this best in a simpler way since I don't necessarily know all the details.. something like

"Kansas hates Missouri"

Or the other way around

"It's complicated"

"Missouri hates Kansas"

"It was a long time ago and no one cares now"

"Everyone in the North of Kansas hates everyone in southern Missouri and everyone in between doesn't care"

Which option best describes the relationship, I wonder?
MarsBar is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 12th, 2018, 09:08 AM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 2,362

Do you mean Kansas-Nebraska instead of Kansas-Missouri?

When the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed, it was assumed that Nebraska would be settled by Iowans moving west and Kansas would be settled by Missourians moving west. Since Iowa was a free state Nebraska would also become a free state. Missouri being a slave state, it was assumed Kansas would become a slave state. However, the Abolitionist Movement hated the Kansas-Nebraska Act and decided to thwart it. They recruited all through New England and other anti-slavery sections of the country for people to go and settle in Kansas. It worked. Kansas filled up with anti-slavery settlers, and the South felt cheated out of a new slave state they thought they had been promised.
Chlodio is offline  
Old March 12th, 2018, 09:45 AM   #3

Pruitt's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Spring, Texas
Posts: 758

There was warfare in Kansas over the Slavery Issue. Many people in Missouri moved to Kansas and were then sent packing. Missouri residents started the ball rolling by organizing raids on abolitionist towns in Kansas. To get an idea of the feud, try watching "The Outlaw Josie Wales".

Several of the officers sent to Harper's Ferry recognized Brown from his activities in Kansas. They had been officers in the 2nd Cavalry there.

Pruitt
Pruitt is offline  
Old March 12th, 2018, 08:46 PM   #4
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: Virginia
Posts: 537

The Kansas Nebraska Act caused outrage among anti-slavery people because it revoked the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had excluded slavery from the Territories of the Louisiana Purchase (including Nebraska and Kansas).

The Kansas Nebraska Act of 1850 provided for the organization of Territorial Governments for Kansas and Nebraska; and provided that the Territorial Governments, when organized, could determine whether slavery would be allowed or not (the "popular sovereignty" doctrine).

All of this actually stemmed from Stephen A Douglas of Illinois desire to organize a Territorial Government for Nebraska in order to facilitate building a transcontinental railroad thru Nebraska with a terminus in Chicago. To get Southern votes he opened up the hope of a slavery-friendly Territorial government for Kansas where slavery had heretofore been banned by Congress.

The outrage became more bitter because pro-slavery people from Missouri ("border ruffians") crossed into Kansas and established a pro-slavery Territorial Government. Anti-slavery settlers insisted it was fraudulent and set up their own government in opposition, leading to lots of violence ("bleeding Kansas").

This is the historical tradition behind the modern rivalries between Kansas and Missouri U sports teams etc (the "border war") but with much less violence. Kansas U's team nickname is "Jayhawks", "Jayhawkers" were anti-slavery Kansas militias.

Last edited by Dentatus; March 12th, 2018 at 09:52 PM.
Dentatus is offline  
Old March 13th, 2018, 05:27 AM   #5
Jedi Knight
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Indiana
Posts: 6,160

The problem wasn't Kansas-Missouri but only from people in the area around Kansas City and east of that area where the concentration of slave owners were.
Mike McClure is offline  
Old March 13th, 2018, 05:58 AM   #6
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2017
From: United States
Posts: 161

Oh gosh it's been awhile, right I actually was thinking of both together, essentially.

As in the Missouri compromise and then the Kansas-Nebraska act..

I guess I was thinking of Kansas-Missouri compromise as a way to kind of get both issues in the same spot, specifically Kansas and Missouri, with the Kansas-Nebraska act being a key point of the discussion.

Ok so as to ^ that makes it sound like an east west sort of divide.. the concentration of slave owners was primarily Kansas city and areas to the east, leaving I suppose parts of Missouri less favorable to the slave owners and slavery.

Last edited by MarsBar; March 13th, 2018 at 06:02 AM.
MarsBar is offline  
Old March 13th, 2018, 06:00 AM   #7
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2017
From: United States
Posts: 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dentatus View Post
The Kansas Nebraska Act caused outrage among anti-slavery people because it revoked the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had excluded slavery from the Territories of the Louisiana Purchase (including Nebraska and Kansas).

The Kansas Nebraska Act of 1850 provided for the organization of Territorial Governments for Kansas and Nebraska; and provided that the Territorial Governments, when organized, could determine whether slavery would be allowed or not (the "popular sovereignty" doctrine).

All of this actually stemmed from Stephen A Douglas of Illinois desire to organize a Territorial Government for Nebraska in order to facilitate building a transcontinental railroad thru Nebraska with a terminus in Chicago. To get Southern votes he opened up the hope of a slavery-friendly Territorial government for Kansas where slavery had heretofore been banned by Congress.

The outrage became more bitter because pro-slavery people from Missouri ("border ruffians") crossed into Kansas and established a pro-slavery Territorial Government. Anti-slavery settlers insisted it was fraudulent and set up their own government in opposition, leading to lots of violence ("bleeding Kansas").

This is the historical tradition behind the modern rivalries between Kansas and Missouri U sports teams etc (the "border war") but with much less violence. Kansas U's team nickname is "Jayhawks", "Jayhawkers" were anti-slavery Kansas militias.
Yes that's right they would actually cross over into the territories it was that bad..

It's nice that sports are what they are, a less violent continuation of some kinds of rivalries I suppose.
MarsBar is offline  
Old March 13th, 2018, 06:01 AM   #8
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2017
From: United States
Posts: 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chlodio View Post
Do you mean Kansas-Nebraska instead of Kansas-Missouri?

When the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed, it was assumed that Nebraska would be settled by Iowans moving west and Kansas would be settled by Missourians moving west. Since Iowa was a free state Nebraska would also become a free state. Missouri being a slave state, it was assumed Kansas would become a slave state. However, the Abolitionist Movement hated the Kansas-Nebraska Act and decided to thwart it. They recruited all through New England and other anti-slavery sections of the country for people to go and settle in Kansas. It worked. Kansas filled up with anti-slavery settlers, and the South felt cheated out of a new slave state they thought they had been promised.
I also noted the point about the movie, perhaps someday ^.^

As to this, so, this is interesting, that suggests that it may not have been as much "native Kansas" sentiment as it was outsiders attempting to promote the state for their particular cause.

So to recap I guess on the points...

I'm thinking of the issues of slavery and free states basically in the region of Missouri and Kansas, with Kansas-Nebraska act and Missouri compromise being two of the key indicators of the situation.

I'm curious as to whether the politicization of these two regions on a national level overshadows their regional politics and

What those regional politics actually were.

So as to answers I see that

There was substantial conflict from both inside and outside the states, as people outside came in but also there were perhaps people within the state of Kansas (not necessarily affiliated with abolitionist movements, but favored being a free state)

One big dividing line was the city of Kansas City as well as areas to the east which were major slaveholding regions.

Last edited by MarsBar; March 13th, 2018 at 06:05 AM.
MarsBar is offline  
Old March 13th, 2018, 06:09 AM   #9
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2017
From: United States
Posts: 161

I guess one more thought popped into my head is, to what extent was slavery an east-west issue versus a north/south one?
MarsBar is offline  
Old March 13th, 2018, 06:23 AM   #10
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 2,362

That status of slavery in Kansas was going to be determined by popular sovereignty - an election. Slave owners were reluctant to move into any territory where the long-term status of slavery had not yet been determined, so they tended to stay in Missouri. However, the Border Ruffians would ride over to Kansas and claim they were Kansas residents and vote in Kansas' elections.

The first territorial elections in March 1855 were highly subject to voter fraud perpetrated by the Border Ruffians.

Later that year anti-slavery factions met in convention at Topeka and wrote the Topeka State Constitution. They sent this to Washington along with their request for statehood. Southern Congressional delegations blocked it in the Senate.

In 1857, pro-slavery factions met in Lecompton to write a constitution which they submitted to Washington. This also failed to pass Congress.

In 1858, the anti-slavery Leavenworth Constitution was approved by Kansas voters, but no action was taken by Washington.

In 1859, the anti-slavery Wyandot Constitution was voted on. This eventually was accepted by Congress in 1861 after the South withdrew its delegations.
Chlodio is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
divide, kansasmissouri, north, south



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Economics of the North and the South (USA) purpleguy89 American History 3 December 21st, 2014 11:47 AM
England ; the north south divide Sindane European History 114 March 23rd, 2014 12:38 PM
North and South Brisieis History in Films and on Television 10 April 24th, 2012 10:55 AM
Is the North still hated by the South? jeroenrottgering American History 76 March 7th, 2012 04:48 PM
North-south "divide" in the USA? JohnnyH American History 70 November 21st, 2009 08:32 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.