Double Helix: Blueprint of Nations
Welcome to 'Double Helix: Blueprint of Nations,' the podcast where we analyze and look at the events, people and actions that have shaped the nations of our world . From revolutions to treaties, conflicts to triumphs, we explore the historical blueprints that continue to influence the way nations think and act today.
Double Helix: Blueprint of Nations
The American Civil War: The Bloody Decade (Part 3)
How did the Second Amendment transform from a focus on militias to an individual right to bear arms, and what does this shift reveal about the mounting tensions in pre-Civil War America? In this gripping episode, we dissect the turbulent 1850s—a decade that brought America to the brink of civil war. Discover how both abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates armed themselves amidst rising tensions over slavery and states' rights, and learn why Northern opposition to slavery was often driven more by economic and political concerns than a commitment to racial equality. We also peel back the layers of Abraham Lincoln's complex views on race, offering a nuanced perspective on pre-Civil War attitudes.
Join us as we recount the violent clashes in "Bleeding Kansas" and the formation of the Republican Party, events that highlighted the nation's escalating tensions. We delve into the brutal attack on Senator Charles Sumner and the landmark Dred Scott case, illustrating how these pivotal moments exacerbated the divide and made compromise nearly impossible. These events set the stage for the Civil War, revealing how political failures and societal fractures led to one of the most defining periods in American history. Don't miss this compelling episode that sheds light on the events and ideologies that pushed America to the edge of conflict.
Like, Share, and Follow, Wherever you get your podcasts!
Twitter: @HistoryHelix
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/Doublehelixhistory
Instagram: History_Helix
Email: DoubleHelixHistorypodcast@gmail.com
As a quick aside and programming note, I realized that back in episode 2.1, I promised that we'd be diving into Lincoln, fort Sumter and all that good stuff an episode ago. But hey, I also mentioned that this series would grow organically. So what started as a two-episode plan has now blossomed into three. It might even stretch to four, who knows. Anyway, let's keep rolling with the story. Welcome to Double Helix. Blueprint of Nations, season 2, episode 2.3, the Bloody Decade.
Speaker 1:The 1850s in America dawned as a new age of unity, prosperity and compromise. No, I'm just kidding. The 1850s were the messy beginning of a bad divorce between what was still then the United States. What had previously been a tense, uneasy peace between the North and the South turned into a period of escalating conflict. Uneasy compromises and negotiations finally shattered as Americans, no longer able to resolve their differences through dialogue and debate, began to channel their frustrations into open hostilities. The state of animosity permeated every aspect of society Law, politics, social institutions. Nothing was immune to the rising tensions.
Speaker 1:This decade also saw the meaning of the Second Amendment evolve into its modern interpretation an unabridged right for citizens to own firearms. As the looming conflict became more inevitable, both abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates began to arm themselves in preparation for the coming storm. Each side saw the possession of weapons as crucial to their cause and their survival. The right to bear arms became not just a constitutional issue but a matter of existential importance. Before the 1850s, the Second Amendment was widely interpreted to mean that citizens who wanted to be part of a well-regulated militia should have weapons. The idea was rooted in the belief that a standing federal army posed a potential threat to liberty, a sentiment born from the colonists' experience with British troops during the American Revolution. Thus, the notion of large federal armies was not particularly popular, and the preferred method of ensuring military readiness was through local militias.
Speaker 1:These militias, composed of ordinary citizens who could be called to service in times of need, were seen as a bulwark against tyranny. They embodied the revolutionary spirit of self-reliance and vigilance. However, as the nation grew and conflicts became more complex, it became increasingly clear that these militias were often unreliable and unprepared for the demands of battle. During the War of 1812, for instance, the limitations of militias were glaringly evident. Despite their patriotic fervor, they were often poorly trained and inadequately equipped. This led to disastrous outcomes in several battles, reinforcing the need for a more robust and professional military force. Yet the distrust of a large standing army persisted and the reliance on militias continued.
Speaker 1:Fast forward to the 1850s and the rising tensions over slavery and states' rights began to shift public perception. The Fugitive Slave Act, the violence in bleeding Kansas and the increasing polarization between North and South all contributed to a growing sense of insecurity and the need for self-defense. Both abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates began to arm themselves, not as members of a formal militia but as individuals preparing for inevitable conflict. In this climate, the interpretation of the Second Amendment began to evolve. The right to bear arms was no longer seen solely in the context of a militia, but also as a personal right to self-defense and resistance against perceived oppression. This shift was driven by the palpable fear and mistrust that permeated American society during the decade. Abolitionists needed to protect themselves from pro-slavery violence, while Southerners armed themselves to defend their way of life against what they saw as northern aggression.
Speaker 1:As the nation edged closer to civil war, the practical shortcomings of militias became impossible to ignore. The concept of a well-regulated militia was being overshadowed by the urgent need for a more effective military response. The early stages of the civil War further demonstrated this shift. When hostilities broke out, both the Union and the Confederacy quickly moved to establish large organized armies. The inadequacies of militias were laid bare and the necessity of a professional standing military force became clear. A professional standing military force became clear.
Speaker 1:This transformation in the understanding of the Second Amendment was more than just legal philosophical changes. It was a reflection of the evolving realities and needs of a nation on the brink of war. The romantic notion of citizen-soldiers giving way to the grim necessities of large-scale organized military power was a turning point in American history. But now moving on with our story. Because meanwhile the North, driven by a growing abolitionist movement, saw the need to protect free states and support escaped slaves, vigilance committees and armed abolitionist groups formed, ready to defend against attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and other pro-slavery laws. These groups were often involved in dramatic rescues of escaped slaves and direct confrontations with slave catchers. In the South, the threat of abolitionist action and the fear of slave revolts led to the militarization of society. Slave patrols were strengthened and militias were formed to defend against perceived northern aggression. The southern states viewed the arming of their populace as a necessary measure to maintain their way of life and protect their economic interests which, as we've discussed before, were deeply intertwined with the institution of slavery.
Speaker 1:Now let's clear up a common misconception For many in the North, there was no great love lost for black Americans. The Northern view of slavery as immoral and impractical shouldn't be confused with a vision of a harmonious, multiracial America. Sure, there were those who passionately advocated for full and complete equality of the races, true champions of abolition, but they were far from the majority. Most Northerners saw slavery as an abomination, but their reasons were often more about economics, politics and abstract principles of freedom rather than a genuine commitment to racial equality. They were appalled by the institution of slavery, yes, but that didn't necessarily translate into a belief that black Americans should have equal rights. The North's stance, while morally superior to the South's slavery now, slavery tomorrow and slavery forever, mantra wasn't quite the beacon of racial progressiveness we might like to think.
Speaker 1:Take the so-called great emancipator, abraham Lincoln. His views on race were complex and, by today's standards, certainly not progressive. In the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, lincoln made it clear that he did not believe in the social and political equality of black and white races. He stated I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. What Lincoln opposed was the expansion of slavery, not necessarily the institution itself.
Speaker 1:Even during his presidency, lincoln's primary focus was preserving the Union, not emancipating the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation issued in 1863, was as much a strategic war measure as it was a moral decree. It declared all slaves in Confederate-held territories free, but it didn't apply to slave-holding states loyal to the Union. Lincoln's primary goal was to weaken the Confederacy and bolster the Union's war effort, not to unconditionally free all enslaved people. So while the North was certainly more progressive than the South on the issue of slavery, it's important to understand that this progressivism had its limits.
Speaker 1:The majority of Northerners were driven by economic interests, political strategy and a desire to prevent the spread of slavery into new territories, rather than a deep-seated commitment to racial equality. The Civil War in many ways was a crucible that tested and reshaped those conflicting views. It forced Americans to confront the brutal reality of slavery and reckon with the contradictions at the heart of their nation's founding principles. But remember, the journey to emancipation and equality was never a straight path. It was fraught with contradictions, half-measures and deeply ingrained prejudice that would continue to shape America's society long after the last shots of the Civil War were fired. So as we go deeper into this turbulent decade, keep in mind that the battle lines were not just geographical, they were ideological and moral as well. The North and the South were not monolithic entities, but were divided internally by their own sets of beliefs and contradictions. Understanding this complexity is crucial because, as we move closer to the bloody conflict that would ultimately decide the fate of the Union, the institution of slavery will loom large over the entirety of the conflict and the nation.
Speaker 1:The decade of conflict truly kicked off with the Compromise of 1850, henry Clay's Hail Mary pass in the grand game of political football. This last-ditch effort was meant to keep the nation stitched together with some semblance of permanence. Think of it as a final curtain call for the Whig Party, already in its death throes and desperately trying to leave the stage with a bang rather than a whimper. The Compromise of 1850 was a package of five bills intended to quell the growing tensions between free and slave states. At his heart, the compromise aimed to balance the interests of both sides, but in reality it was more like putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. California was admitted as a free state, but then again it was always going to be a free state, while the territories of Utah and New Mexico were left to decide the issue of slavery through popular sovereignty, essentially kicking the can down the road.
Speaker 1:But perhaps the most contentious piece of this legislative patchwork was the Fugitive Slave Act. If there was ever a moment where you could hear the collective gasp of horror from the North, this was it. The act mandated that escaped slaves be returned to their owners, even if they had made it to a free state. It effectively turned every American citizen into a potential enforcer of slavery, regardless of their personal beliefs. For many Northerners, this was intolerable. Imagine living in a state where slavery was outlawed. Tolerable. Imagine living in a state where slavery was outlawed, only to be compelled by federal law to participate in its enforcement.
Speaker 1:The act provoked outrage and resistance because, in essence, all Americans were now forced to partake in the institution of slavery. Abolitionists ramped up their efforts, forming vigilance committees to protect escaped slaves and employing tactics ranging from legal challenges to outright defiance. One of the most famous instances of resistance occurred in Boston in 1854 with the case of Anthony Burns. Burns, an escaped slave, was captured and ordered to be returned to his owner. Abolitionists in Boston rallied in his defense, staging a large and vociferous protest. Despite their efforts, federal troops escorted Burns to a ship back to the South, but the spectacle only galvanized the abolitionist movement even further. Historian Eric Foner describes that Burns' incident was a galvanizing moment that brought the horrors of the Fugitive Slave Act into the living rooms of Northern citizens. The Fugitive Slave Act had the unintended effect of pushing many modern Northerners into the abolitionist camp.
Speaker 1:The sight of free states being complicit in the slave system was too much for many to bear. It wasn't just about abstract political principles anymore. It was about human lives and personal morality. As Harriet Beecher Stowe put it in her groundbreaking novel Uncle Tom's Cabin, published in 1852, the legal power of the master over the slave is an absolute despotism. Stowe's novel was more than just a bestseller. It was a cultural bombshell. It vividly depicted the brutal realities of slavery, drawing empathy from readers across the North and igniting widespread outrage. Abraham Lincoln would later reportedly greet Stowe as the little lady who started this great war, later reportedly greet Stowe as the little lady who started this great war. Her book, first published as a series in the monthly National Era in 1851, was later published in 1852 as a book and sold 300,000 copies in just six months. In the next decade it appeared in 16 languages and sold over 4.5 million copies. The effects were electric and people who had never thought about slavery suddenly developed a consciousness about it and its immorality.
Speaker 1:The resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act was about moral outrage in part, but it was also about the fundamental clash of state versus federal authority. Northern states began to pass personal liberty laws designed to thwart the enforcement of the act. These laws provided various legal protections to escape slaves and prohibited state officials from cooperating in their capture. Southern slaveholders viewed these laws as direct attacks on their property rights and as evidence that the North was intent on undermining their institution of slavery. By the end of the decade, tensions had reached a fever pitch. The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Avelman v Booth of 1859 further inflamed the situation. The court ruled that state courts could not interfere with the enforcing of the Fugitive Slave Act, striking down Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the law. As expected, anger flared in the North. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a flashpoint that exposed the deep moral and ideological divides between North and South. It forced individuals and states to take sides in the growing conflict over slavery, making it increasingly clear that the nation was headed towards a confrontation.
Speaker 1:As we move forward, we'll see how these tensions spilled over into the territories, turning places like Kansas into battlegrounds for the nation's soul. Like Kansas into battlegrounds for the nation's soul. Next, we'll explore the violence of Bleeding Kansas, where pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces clash in a deadly struggle that foreshadowed the larger war to come In Kansas in the mid-1850s. We find a territory that became yet another flashpoint for the nation's sectional conflicts. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, championed by Senator Stephen Douglas, effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise by allowing the residents of Kansas and Nebraska to decide the slavery issue through popular sovereignty. This seemingly democratic solution, however, opened the floodgates for conflict.
Speaker 1:Pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers poured into Kansas, each side determined to sway the vote. The territory quickly descended into chaos as both factions resorted to violence to assert their dominance. The pro-slavery settlers, backed by Missouri border Rufians, established a government in Lecompton, while the anti-slavery settlers set up a rival government in Topeka. This duality of power led to a volatile and deadly environment. The violence in Kansas was brutal and pervasive. In May 1856, pro-slavery forces sacked the town of Lawrence. An anti-slavery stronghold Buildings were burned and the printing presses were destroyed, leaving the town in ruins. In response, the radical abolitionist John Brown and his followers launched a retaliatory raid at Puttawatomie Creek, brutally killing five pro-slavery settlers. This act of vengeance marked Brown as a fiercely committed, albeit controversial, figure in the fight against slavery.
Speaker 1:The conflict in Kansas was about more than just local control. It was a proxy war for the nation's future. Newspapers across the country reported on the violence and the term Bleeding Kansas became a rallying cry for both sides became a rallying cry for both sides. The territory was a microcosm of the national conflict, illustrating how deeply divided the country had become and how ineffective legislative compromises were at addressing the root causes of the conflict. The political repercussions of the violence in Kansas were significant. The brutality and lawlessness demonstrated the failure of popular sovereignty as a solution to the slavery issue.
Speaker 1:As the violence in Kansas raged on, it became glaringly obvious that the nation was barreling towards an all-out conflict. The bloody chaos in Kansas wasn't just some isolated bout of madness. It was a sneak preview of the widespread violence that would soon engulf the entire country. Historian James McPherson sums it up perfectly the violence in Kansas demonstrated that the sectional conflict over slavery could no longer be contained within the political system. It was a preview of the Civil War to come and then, smack dab in the middle of this whirlwind, was John Brown, a man so dedicated to the abolitionist cause that he made everyone else look like they were just dabbling in anti-slavery sentiment. Brown's radical actions and uncompromising stance on slavery would make him one of the most controversial and pivotal figures in the lead-up to the Civil War. He wasn't just fighting for abolition, he was on a personal crusade. So while bleeding Kansas escalated, the animosity between North and South to new heights, turning political rhetoric into actual bloodshed. As violence continued, the nation found itself tiptoeing ever closer to the abyss. The massacres and brutal conflicts in Kansas only serving as grim reminders that the conflict over slavery was no longer confined to debates and legislation. It was now a matter of life and death. The chaos and the violence in Kansas finally pushed that diverse coalition of free soilers, radical Whigs and Northern Democrats to unite and form the Republican Party in 1854. Northern Democrats to unite and form the Republican Party in 1854. This new political force was dedicated to halting the spread of slavery into the western territories, a goal that resonated with many who had witnessed the horrors of bleeding Kansas.
Speaker 1:The formation of the Republican Party marked a significant shift in the political landscape of the United States. It provided a unified platform for those opposed to the expansion of slavery, bringing together disparate groups under a common cause. This new found unity galvanized the anti-slavery movement, giving it the political clout it needed to challenge the pro-slavery establishment. The Republicans quickly gained momentum, attracting supporters from across the North who were increasingly alarmed by the South's aggressive stance on slavery. Their message was clear no more compromises, no more concessions to the slave-holding interests. This uncompromising stance resonated with the populace that had grown weary of the endless political wrangling and moral compromises that had defined the previous decades.
Speaker 1:As the Republicans prepare for the 1856 presidential election, they face fierce opposition from the established parties. The Democrats, led by James Buchanan, sought to maintain the status quo, while the Know-Nothing Party capitalized on nativist sentiments, running on a platform of anti-immigrant fervor. Despite these challenges, the Republican Party's anti-slavery platform struck a chord with many voters, signaling a dramatic realignment in American politics. The election of 1856 was a harbinger of the turmoil to come, and although the Republican Party did not win the presidency, their strong showing revealed the deep divisions within the nation. The political landscape was now irrevocably altered, with the Republican Party emerging as a formidable force dedicated to confronting the issue of slavery head-on as tensions continued to rise, it became increasingly clear that the nation was on a collision course with itself. The formation of the Republican Party was both a response to the immediate crisis and a recognition that the old political order was no longer capable of addressing the fundamental issues tearing the country apart, and so the stage was set for a showdown that would ultimately lead to the Civil War.
Speaker 1:Also in 1856, the brutal attack on Senator Charles Sumner underscored the escalating violence and the deepening divisions within the nation. Sumner was a staunch abolitionist from Massachusetts, and he delivered a scathing speech in the Senate condemning the pro-slavery forces in Kansas and personally attacking Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina. Sumner's speech, known as the Crime Against Kansas, was a blistering critique of the South's efforts to spread slavery into the new territories. Sumner's words were not merely rhetorical flourishes. They were a direct challenge to the moral and political foundation of the pro-slavery faction. He accused Butler of taking quote the harlot slavery end, quote as his mistress a personal attack that stung deeply. The speech was emblematic of the increasingly hostile and polarized rhetoric that characterized the national debate over slavery and the 1850s as a whole.
Speaker 1:A few days after Sumner's speech, representative Preston Brooks, a relative of Butler, decided that Sumner's insults could not go unanswered. On May 22, 1856, brooks entered the Senate chamber, approached Sumner and, without warning, began to beat him mercilessly with a heavy cane. The attack was so violent that Sumner, trapped under his desk, could not defend himself. Brooks continued to strike until the cane broke, leaving Sumner bloodied and unconscious on the floor. The attack was shockingly brutal. Sumner's injuries were severe and he required years to recover fully. Brutal Sumner's injuries were severe and he required years to recover fully.
Speaker 1:The incident highlighted the extreme lengths to which individuals were willing to go to defend their position on slavery. It wasn't just a physical assault on Sumner. It was an attack on the very principles of free speech and democratic debate. The canning of Charles Sumner shocked the nation. In the North, it was seen as a barbaric act of Southern aggression and a stark illustration of the violent depths to which the pro-slavery faction would sink. Sumner was hailed as a martyr for the abolitionist cause and his empty Senate seat, draped in black, served as a powerful symbol of Southern brutality. In the South, however, brooks was celebrated as a hero. He received numerous canes from admirers, some inscribed with messages like hit him again. This stark contrast in reactions between the north and the south shows you how deep the growing chasm between the two regions had become.
Speaker 1:The attack on Sumner was more than just an isolated incident. It was the national crisis. It demonstrated that the conflict over slavery had moved beyond the realm of political debate and now into the physical realm of violence. And so the lines were being drawn and compromise was becoming increasingly impossible as the nation reeled from the violence in Kansas and the brutal assault on Sumner. As the nation reeled from the violence in Kansas and the brutal assault in Sumner, the Republican Party was galvanizing its forces. The party's platform, built on its opposition to the expansion of slavery, attracted a broad coalition of anti-slavery advocates, and so the political landscape was shifting and the battle lines were being drawn more clearly than ever before. By now, america was reeling from multiple body blows and the nation was teetering on the edge. To add fuel to the fire, the Dred Scott decision worked like kerosene on the volatile mix that was America in the 1850s. Let's rewind a bit to dive into the origins of the Dred Scott case, which is a case that turned the political landscape into a tinderbox ready to explode.
Speaker 1:Dred Scott was an enslaved African American born around 1799. By the 1830s, he was owned by Dr John Emerson, an army surgeon. As Emerson was posted to different locations, scott accompanied him, living in various free territories, including Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was prohibited under the Missouri Compromise. Here's where things get interesting. In 1836, emerson moved to the free Wisconsin Territory, taking Scott with him. According to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise, slavery was illegal in this territory. For a time Scott lived free in all but name. Then, in 1840, emerson relocated again, this time back to the slave state of Missouri. Shortly after Emerson died and Scott found himself in the custody of Emerson's widow.
Speaker 1:Scott, understandably, was not thrilled about being dragged back into a life of bondage after living in free territories for so long. So in 1846, he took the bold step of suing for his freedom in a Missouri court, his argument that his residence in free territories had made him a free man. This wasn't an entirely new legal strategy. Several enslaved people had successfully sued for their freedom on similar grounds. Initially it seemed like Scott might have a chance. The Missouri courts had a history of granting freedom to enslaved people who had lived in free territories. But times were changing and the pro-slavery sentiment was gaining strength.
Speaker 1:Scott's case was initially successful in 1850, when a St Louis court ruled in his favor. However, the case was appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which reversed the decision in 1852, reflecting the increasingly political pressure and sectional tensions of the time. Scott's legal battle didn't end there. With the support of abolitionist lawyers, scott's case was taken to federal courts, ultimately landing in the lap of the United States Supreme Court. This is where the drama really ramps up.
Speaker 1:The case officially known as Dred Scott v Sanford the case officially known as Dred Scott v Sanford came before the Supreme Court in 1856. The nation watched with bated breath. The stakes were monumental and when Chief Justice Roger B Taney delivered the court's decision on March 6, 1857, it sent shockwaves throughout the country. The court ruled against Scott, stating that, as a black man, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. Moreover, the court declared that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in the territories, effectively nullifying the Missouri Compromise.
Speaker 1:The decision was a catastrophic blow to the abolitionist movement and a triumphant victory for pro-slavery forces. It not only dashed the hopes of Dred Scott, but also inflamed the already volatile national debate over slavery. As Taney's words echoed throughout the nation, they made it painfully clear that the political and legal systems were deeply biased in favor of maintaining and expanding slavery. In the North, the ruling was met with outreach and horror. It galvanized anti-slavery sentiment, pushing many moderates towards a more radical stance. In the South, the decision was a vindication of their rights and a confirmation of their worldview. It emboldened pro-slavery advocates and further entrenched the ideological divide between North and South. The ruling exacerbated sectional tensions and it convinced many that the judicial system was hopelessly biased in favor of the Southern states.
Speaker 1:The Dred Scott decision didn't just impact Scott himself. It struck at the very heart of the nation's identity and future. It starkly highlighted the moral and political contradictions tearing America apart. The bloody conflict was fast approaching. The political landscape was already fraught with tension, and then the Dred Scott decision only served to deepen the chasm. It became clear that the issue of slavery could no longer be contained within the political system. The North and the South were on a collision course, and the events of the 1850s had set the stage for the inevitable conflict that would soon engulf the entire nation.
Speaker 1:Now remember our old friend John Brown. It's about time we delve into his story. His crusade against slavery would be the final major act of the bloody decade. The aftermath the election of 1860, would see a little-known lawyer from Illinois become the 16th President of the United States. This election would be the final catalyst for secession and war. This election would be the final catalyst for secession and war. In our next episode we will zoom in on Lincoln, the election of 1860, and the secession crisis, but for now we need to introduce and then quickly bid farewell to a man of conviction but also a man of great pilots John Brown.
Speaker 1:John Brown was a man of intense conviction and radical action, not great at a lot of things in life except agitation and fathering children. Born in 1800 in Connecticut, brown was raised in a deeply religious family that abhorred slavery. His father was a fervent abolitionist and Brown grew up with a strong sense of moral righteousness. This upbringing made for his lifelong crusade against the institution of slavery. By the 1850s, brown had become a dedicated abolitionist, willing to use violence to achieve his goals. His actions in Kansas, particularly the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre, where he and his followers killed five pro-slavery settlers in cold blood, solidified his reputation as a radical and a fearless opponent of slavery. This event, gruesome as it was, underscored Brown's belief that the fight against slavery required drastic measures.
Speaker 1:In 1859, brown conceived a plan to incite a slave rebellion by capturing the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry, virginia. He believed that by arming enslaved people, he could spark a widespread uprising that would ultimately destroy the institution of slavery. Brown gathered a small group of followers, including his sons, and launched this raid on October 16, 1859. The raid was a tactical disaster. Brown and his men managed to seize the arsenal, but they were quickly surrounded by local militia and federal troops. After a two-day standoff, brown was captured and several of his followers were killed. Brown was tried for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, convicted and sentenced to death. On December 2, 1859, he was hanged, becoming a martyr for the abolitionist cause.
Speaker 1:Brown's raid on Harper Ferry had a profound impact on the nation. In the North, he was hailed as a hero, a man who had sacrificed his life for the cause of freedom. Abolitionists celebrated his courage and conviction, and his execution was widely mourned. Henry David Thoreau, the transcendentalist writer and philosopher, delivered a speech in defense of Brown, calling him a quote crucified hero, end quote. In the South, however, brown's raid confirmed the war's fears of slaveholders. They saw Brown as a symbol of northern aggression and a direct threat to their way of life. The raid heightened southern paranoia about slave rebellions and further entrenched all determinations to defend slavery at all costs.
Speaker 1:With Brown's execution, the bloody decade came to an ignominious close. The road ahead for America would be filled with corpses, war and misery, but also with the rebirth of the nation that would emerge fundamentally different from the one before the war. John Brown's martyrdom against slavery was a harbinger of the broader national tragedy that was unfolding. His last words will prove prophetic Quote. I, john Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be perched away, but with blood. I had vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done. End quote. Next time, on Double Helix, we'll zoom in on Abraham Lincoln, his appearance on the political stage and his meteoric rise out of obscurity into the presidency of the United States at its most crucial time. The election of 1860 and the secession crisis that followed the first shots of the war at Fort Sumter are not too distant. Now Join us next time for part four of the American Civil War story. Thank you for listening. We will see you soon.
