Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a women’s rights activist and a leader in the movement that eventually secured American women the right to vote. Her early education, upbringing, and interest in social matters set her on a path of leadership, and she inspired other men and women to take up the cause as well.

Unlike other activists such as Susan B. Anthony, who was clearly focused on the issue of voting rights for women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wanted to promote the broader issue of women’s rights and address issues such as women’s custody and property rights, employment and income rights, divorce laws, birth control, and abortion. Even though Anthony and Stanton disagreed on the focus of the women’s rights movement, they remained friends and continued working together towards voting rights for women.

Stanton remained focused on her work, writing many important books, documents, and speeches for the women’s rights movement. She also traveled and lectured widely, earning money to pay for her sons to attend college. Stanton promoted voting rights for women in several states, and she made an unsuccessful attempt to secure a U.S. Congressional seat from New York.

As Stanton grew older, she became more active internationally, and in 1888, she worked to found the International Council of Women. In the U.S., it took until 1890 for the divided supporters of the women’s rights movement to eventually reunite as the National American Woman Suffrage Association, and Stanton became the organization’s first president. After spending over five decades working towards equal rights for women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton died in 1902, still some twenty years before women gained the right to vote.

Because of her controversial ideas, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was initially overshadowed by Susan B. Anthony, who was more often recognized as the founder of the women’s rights movement. Over time, however, formal recognition of Stanton’s work has increased. Today, Elizabeth Cady Stanton is rightly acknowledged for taking a founding role in the movement that secured voting rights for women and for shaping the broader movement towards more equal rights for women in society at large.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a women’s rights activist and a leader in the movement that eventually secured American women the right to vote. Her early education, upbringing, and interest in social matters set her on a path of leadership, and she inspired other men and women to take up the cause as well.

Unlike other activists such as Susan B. Anthony, who was clearly focused on the issue of voting rights for women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wanted to promote the broader issue of women’s rights and address issues such as women’s custody and property rights, employment and income rights, divorce laws, birth control, and abortion. Even though Anthony and Stanton disagreed on the focus of the women’s rights movement, they remained friends and continued working together towards voting rights for women.

Stanton remained focused on her work, writing many important books, documents, and speeches for the women’s rights movement. She also traveled and lectured widely, earning money to pay for her sons to attend college. Stanton promoted voting rights for women in several states, and she made an unsuccessful attempt to secure a U.S. Congressional seat from New York.

As Stanton grew older, she became more active internationally, and in 1888, she worked to found the International Council of Women. In the U.S., it took until 1890 for the divided supporters of the women’s rights movement to eventually reunite as the National American Woman Suffrage Association, and Stanton became the organization’s first president. After spending over five decades working towards equal rights for women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton died in 1902, still some twenty years before women gained the right to vote.

Because of her controversial ideas, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was initially overshadowed by Susan B. Anthony, who was more often recognized as the founder of the women’s rights movement. Over time, however, formal recognition of Stanton’s work has increased. Today, Elizabeth Cady Stanton is rightly acknowledged for taking a founding role in the movement that secured voting rights for women and for shaping the broader movement towards more equal rights for women in society at large.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a women’s rights activist and a leader in the movement that eventually secured American women the right to vote. Her early education, upbringing, and interest in social matters set her on a path of leadership, and she inspired other men and women to take up the cause as well.

Unlike other activists such as Susan B. Anthony, who was clearly focused on the issue of voting rights for women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wanted to promote the broader issue of women’s rights and address issues such as women’s custody and property rights, employment and income rights, divorce laws, birth control, and abortion. Even though Anthony and Stanton disagreed on the focus of the women’s rights movement, they remained friends and continued working together towards voting rights for women.

Stanton remained focused on her work, writing many important books, documents, and speeches for the women’s rights movement. She also traveled and lectured widely, earning money to pay for her sons to attend college. Stanton promoted voting rights for women in several states, and she made an unsuccessful attempt to secure a U.S. Congressional seat from New York.

As Stanton grew older, she became more active internationally, and in 1888, she worked to found the International Council of Women. In the U.S., it took until 1890 for the divided supporters of the women’s rights movement to eventually reunite as the National American Woman Suffrage Association, and Stanton became the organization’s first president. After spending over five decades working towards equal rights for women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton died in 1902, still some twenty years before women gained the right to vote.

Because of her controversial ideas, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was initially overshadowed by Susan B. Anthony, who was more often recognized as the founder of the women’s rights movement. Over time, however, formal recognition of Stanton’s work has increased. Today, Elizabeth Cady Stanton is rightly acknowledged for taking a founding role in the movement that secured voting rights for women and for shaping the broader movement towards more equal rights for women in society at large.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a women’s rights activist and a leader in the movement that eventually secured American women the right to vote. Her early education, upbringing, and interest in social matters set her on a path of leadership, and she inspired other men and women to take up the cause as well.

Unlike other activists such as Susan B. Anthony, who was clearly focused on the issue of voting rights for women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wanted to promote the broader issue of women’s rights and address issues such as women’s custody and property rights, employment and income rights, divorce laws, birth control, and abortion. Even though Anthony and Stanton disagreed on the focus of the women’s rights movement, they remained friends and continued working together towards voting rights for women.

Stanton remained focused on her work, writing many important books, documents, and speeches for the women’s rights movement. She also traveled and lectured widely, earning money to pay for her sons to attend college. Stanton promoted voting rights for women in several states, and she made an unsuccessful attempt to secure a U.S. Congressional seat from New York.

As Stanton grew older, she became more active internationally, and in 1888, she worked to found the International Council of Women. In the U.S., it took until 1890 for the divided supporters of the women’s rights movement to eventually reunite as the National American Woman Suffrage Association, and Stanton became the organization’s first president. After spending over five decades working towards equal rights for women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton died in 1902, still some twenty years before women gained the right to vote.

Because of her controversial ideas, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was initially overshadowed by Susan B. Anthony, who was more often recognized as the founder of the women’s rights movement. Over time, however, formal recognition of Stanton’s work has increased. Today, Elizabeth Cady Stanton is rightly acknowledged for taking a founding role in the movement that secured voting rights for women and for shaping the broader movement towards more equal rights for women in society at large.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a women’s rights activist and a leader in the movement that eventually secured American women the right to vote. Her early education, upbringing, and interest in social matters set her on a path of leadership, and she inspired other men and women to take up the cause as well.

Unlike other activists such as Susan B. Anthony, who was clearly focused on the issue of voting rights for women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wanted to promote the broader issue of women’s rights and address issues such as women’s custody and property rights, employment and income rights, divorce laws, birth control, and abortion. Even though Anthony and Stanton disagreed on the focus of the women’s rights movement, they remained friends and continued working together towards voting rights for women.

Stanton remained focused on her work, writing many important books, documents, and speeches for the women’s rights movement. She also traveled and lectured widely, earning money to pay for her sons to attend college. Stanton promoted voting rights for women in several states, and she made an unsuccessful attempt to secure a U.S. Congressional seat from New York.

As Stanton grew older, she became more active internationally, and in 1888, she worked to found the International Council of Women. In the U.S., it took until 1890 for the divided supporters of the women’s rights movement to eventually reunite as the National American Woman Suffrage Association, and Stanton became the organization’s first president. After spending over five decades working towards equal rights for women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton died in 1902, still some twenty years before women gained the right to vote.

Because of her controversial ideas, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was initially overshadowed by Susan B. Anthony, who was more often recognized as the founder of the women’s rights movement. Over time, however, formal recognition of Stanton’s work has increased. Today, Elizabeth Cady Stanton is rightly acknowledged for taking a founding role in the movement that secured voting rights for women and for shaping the broader movement towards more equal rights for women in society at large.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a women’s rights activist and a leader in the movement that eventually secured American women the right to vote. Her early education, upbringing, and interest in social matters set her on a path of leadership, and she inspired other men and women to take up the cause as well.

Unlike other activists such as Susan B. Anthony, who was clearly focused on the issue of voting rights for women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wanted to promote the broader issue of women’s rights and address issues such as women’s custody and property rights, employment and income rights, divorce laws, birth control, and abortion. Even though Anthony and Stanton disagreed on the focus of the women’s rights movement, they remained friends and continued working together towards voting rights for women.

Stanton remained focused on her work, writing many important books, documents, and speeches for the women’s rights movement. She also traveled and lectured widely, earning money to pay for her sons to attend college. Stanton promoted voting rights for women in several states, and she made an unsuccessful attempt to secure a U.S. Congressional seat from New York.

As Stanton grew older, she became more active internationally, and in 1888, she worked to found the International Council of Women. In the U.S., it took until 1890 for the divided supporters of the women’s rights movement to eventually reunite as the National American Woman Suffrage Association, and Stanton became the organization’s first president. After spending over five decades working towards equal rights for women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton died in 1902, still some twenty years before women gained the right to vote.

Because of her controversial ideas, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was initially overshadowed by Susan B. Anthony, who was more often recognized as the founder of the women’s rights movement. Over time, however, formal recognition of Stanton’s work has increased. Today, Elizabeth Cady Stanton is rightly acknowledged for taking a founding role in the movement that secured voting rights for women and for shaping the broader movement towards more equal rights for women in society at large.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a women’s rights activist and a leader in the movement that eventually secured American women the right to vote. Her early education, upbringing, and interest in social matters set her on a path of leadership, and she inspired other men and women to take up the cause as well.

Unlike other activists such as Susan B. Anthony, who was clearly focused on the issue of voting rights for women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wanted to promote the broader issue of women’s rights and address issues such as women’s custody and property rights, employment and income rights, divorce laws, birth control, and abortion. Even though Anthony and Stanton disagreed on the focus of the women’s rights movement, they remained friends and continued working together towards voting rights for women.

Stanton remained focused on her work, writing many important books, documents, and speeches for the women’s rights movement. She also traveled and lectured widely, earning money to pay for her sons to attend college. Stanton promoted voting rights for women in several states, and she made an unsuccessful attempt to secure a U.S. Congressional seat from New York.

As Stanton grew older, she became more active internationally, and in 1888, she worked to found the International Council of Women. In the U.S., it took until 1890 for the divided supporters of the women’s rights movement to eventually reunite as the National American Woman Suffrage Association, and Stanton became the organization’s first president. After spending over five decades working towards equal rights for women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton died in 1902, still some twenty years before women gained the right to vote.

Because of her controversial ideas, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was initially overshadowed by Susan B. Anthony, who was more often recognized as the founder of the women’s rights movement. Over time, however, formal recognition of Stanton’s work has increased. Today, Elizabeth Cady Stanton is rightly acknowledged for taking a founding role in the movement that secured voting rights for women and for shaping the broader movement towards more equal rights for women in society at large.

Mr. Eric Nielsen
Chief Executive Officer
Swirl Corporation
Wilmington, NC 28409

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

[32] ———- have been loyal customers of the Swirl Corporation for the past 30 years. We have purchased various household appliances such as dishwashers, ovens, washers, and dryers from the local Swirl outlet store since moving here in the early nineties. We recently purchased a Swirl Eco Energy Star refrigerator from your store to replace our old non-Energy Star refrigerator. The new refrigerator worked well for two months before the top freezer stopped cooling completely. Our energy bills also seem to have increased by about $25/month since we bought this new Energy Star model.

Upon researching the problem, I found that there have been recalls of several products with serial numbers [33] ————–. I spoke to [34] ————– at the outlet store, but all he did was tell me to call your toll free number. Upon calling the toll free number, I was told I to return the refrigerator to the outlet store for forwarding to your distribution facility.

It has been three weeks since we returned the refrigerator to your [35] —————– a status update on the refrigerator. Our energy bills have dropped back to their original level since we switched back to our old refrigerator. However, our goal was to reduce our energy bill, so we are still dissatisfied. If you would like to retain us as customers, then please address these issues immediately.

Sincerely,

Horace Whittaker III

Mr. Eric Nielsen
Chief Executive Officer
Swirl Corporation
Wilmington, NC 28409

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

[32] ———- have been loyal customers of the Swirl Corporation for the past 30 years. We have purchased various household appliances such as dishwashers, ovens, washers, and dryers from the local Swirl outlet store since moving here in the early nineties. We recently purchased a Swirl Eco Energy Star refrigerator from your store to replace our old non-Energy Star refrigerator. The new refrigerator worked well for two months before the top freezer stopped cooling completely. Our energy bills also seem to have increased by about $25/month since we bought this new Energy Star model.

Upon researching the problem, I found that there have been recalls of several products with serial numbers [33] ————–. I spoke to [34] ————– at the outlet store, but all he did was tell me to call your toll free number. Upon calling the toll free number, I was told I to return the refrigerator to the outlet store for forwarding to your distribution facility.

It has been three weeks since we returned the refrigerator to your [35] —————– a status update on the refrigerator. Our energy bills have dropped back to their original level since we switched back to our old refrigerator. However, our goal was to reduce our energy bill, so we are still dissatisfied. If you would like to retain us as customers, then please address these issues immediately.

Sincerely,

Horace Whittaker III

Mr. Eric Nielsen
Chief Executive Officer
Swirl Corporation
Wilmington, NC 28409

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

[32] ———- have been loyal customers of the Swirl Corporation for the past 30 years. We have purchased various household appliances such as dishwashers, ovens, washers, and dryers from the local Swirl outlet store since moving here in the early nineties. We recently purchased a Swirl Eco Energy Star refrigerator from your store to replace our old non-Energy Star refrigerator. The new refrigerator worked well for two months before the top freezer stopped cooling completely. Our energy bills also seem to have increased by about $25/month since we bought this new Energy Star model.

Upon researching the problem, I found that there have been recalls of several products with serial numbers [33] ————–. I spoke to [34] ————– at the outlet store, but all he did was tell me to call your toll free number. Upon calling the toll free number, I was told I to return the refrigerator to the outlet store for forwarding to your distribution facility.

It has been three weeks since we returned the refrigerator to your [35] —————– a status update on the refrigerator. Our energy bills have dropped back to their original level since we switched back to our old refrigerator. However, our goal was to reduce our energy bill, so we are still dissatisfied. If you would like to retain us as customers, then please address these issues immediately.

Sincerely,

Horace Whittaker III

Mr. Eric Nielsen
Chief Executive Officer
Swirl Corporation
Wilmington, NC 28409

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

[32] ———- have been loyal customers of the Swirl Corporation for the past 30 years. We have purchased various household appliances such as dishwashers, ovens, washers, and dryers from the local Swirl outlet store since moving here in the early nineties. We recently purchased a Swirl Eco Energy Star refrigerator from your store to replace our old non-Energy Star refrigerator. The new refrigerator worked well for two months before the top freezer stopped cooling completely. Our energy bills also seem to have increased by about $25/month since we bought this new Energy Star model.

Upon researching the problem, I found that there have been recalls of several products with serial numbers [33] ————–. I spoke to [34] ————– at the outlet store, but all he did was tell me to call your toll free number. Upon calling the toll free number, I was told I to return the refrigerator to the outlet store for forwarding to your distribution facility.

It has been three weeks since we returned the refrigerator to your [35] —————– a status update on the refrigerator. Our energy bills have dropped back to their original level since we switched back to our old refrigerator. However, our goal was to reduce our energy bill, so we are still dissatisfied. If you would like to retain us as customers, then please address these issues immediately.

Sincerely,

Horace Whittaker III

The Civil War Crisis

The fall of Fort Sumter in April, 1861, did not produce the Civil War crisis. In 1858, Lincoln had forewarned the country in his “House Divided” speech. Early in February of 1860, Jefferson Davis, on behalf of the South, had introduced his famous resolutions in the Senate. This document was the ultimatum of the dissatisfied slave-holding commonwealths. It demanded that Congress should protect slavery throughout the domain of the United States. The territories, it declared, were the common property of the states of the Union and hence open to the citizens of all states with all their personal possessions. The Northern states, furthermore, were no longer to interfere with the working of the Fugitive Slave Act. They must respect the Dred Scott decision of the Federal Supreme Court.

Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom. The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney — a staunch supporter of slavery — wrote the “majority opinion” for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

Neither in their own legislatures nor in Congress could the Northern states trespass upon the right of the South to regulate slavery as it best saw fit. These resolutions, demanding in effect that slavery be thus safeguarded — almost to the extent of introducing it into the free states — really foreshadowed the Democratic platform of 1860 which led to the great split in that party, the victory of the Republicans under Lincoln, the subsequent secession of the more radical southern states, and finally the Civil War, for it was inevitable that the North, when once aroused, would bitterly resent such pro-slavery demands. And this great crisis was only the bursting into flame of many smaller fires that had long been smoldering. For generations the two sections had been drifting apart. Since the middle of the seventeenth century, Mason and Dixon’s line had been a line of real division separating two inherently distinct portions of the country.

Naturally, the conflict would at once present intricate military problems, and among them the retention of the Pacific Coast was of the deepest concern to the Union. Situated at a distance of nearly two thousand miles from the Missouri river which was then the nation’s western frontier, this intervening space comprised trackless plains, almost impenetrable ranges of snow-capped mountains, and parched alkali deserts. And besides these barriers of nature which lay between the West coast and the settled eastern half of the country, there were many fierce tribes who were usually on the alert to oppose the movements of the white race through their dominions.

Adapted from “The Story of the Pony Express” by Glenn D. Bradley.

The Civil War Crisis

The fall of Fort Sumter in April, 1861, did not produce the Civil War crisis. In 1858, Lincoln had forewarned the country in his “House Divided” speech. Early in February of 1860, Jefferson Davis, on behalf of the South, had introduced his famous resolutions in the Senate. This document was the ultimatum of the dissatisfied slave-holding commonwealths. It demanded that Congress should protect slavery throughout the domain of the United States. The territories, it declared, were the common property of the states of the Union and hence open to the citizens of all states with all their personal possessions. The Northern states, furthermore, were no longer to interfere with the working of the Fugitive Slave Act. They must respect the Dred Scott decision of the Federal Supreme Court.

Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom. The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney — a staunch supporter of slavery — wrote the “majority opinion” for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

Neither in their own legislatures nor in Congress could the Northern states trespass upon the right of the South to regulate slavery as it best saw fit. These resolutions, demanding in effect that slavery be thus safeguarded — almost to the extent of introducing it into the free states — really foreshadowed the Democratic platform of 1860 which led to the great split in that party, the victory of the Republicans under Lincoln, the subsequent secession of the more radical southern states, and finally the Civil War, for it was inevitable that the North, when once aroused, would bitterly resent such pro-slavery demands. And this great crisis was only the bursting into flame of many smaller fires that had long been smoldering. For generations the two sections had been drifting apart. Since the middle of the seventeenth century, Mason and Dixon’s line had been a line of real division separating two inherently distinct portions of the country.

Naturally, the conflict would at once present intricate military problems, and among them the retention of the Pacific Coast was of the deepest concern to the Union. Situated at a distance of nearly two thousand miles from the Missouri river which was then the nation’s western frontier, this intervening space comprised trackless plains, almost impenetrable ranges of snow-capped mountains, and parched alkali deserts. And besides these barriers of nature which lay between the West coast and the settled eastern half of the country, there were many fierce tribes who were usually on the alert to oppose the movements of the white race through their dominions.

Adapted from “The Story of the Pony Express” by Glenn D. Bradley.

The Civil War Crisis

The fall of Fort Sumter in April, 1861, did not produce the Civil War crisis. In 1858, Lincoln had forewarned the country in his “House Divided” speech. Early in February of 1860, Jefferson Davis, on behalf of the South, had introduced his famous resolutions in the Senate. This document was the ultimatum of the dissatisfied slave-holding commonwealths. It demanded that Congress should protect slavery throughout the domain of the United States. The territories, it declared, were the common property of the states of the Union and hence open to the citizens of all states with all their personal possessions. The Northern states, furthermore, were no longer to interfere with the working of the Fugitive Slave Act. They must respect the Dred Scott decision of the Federal Supreme Court.

Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom. The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney — a staunch supporter of slavery — wrote the “majority opinion” for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

Neither in their own legislatures nor in Congress could the Northern states trespass upon the right of the South to regulate slavery as it best saw fit. These resolutions, demanding in effect that slavery be thus safeguarded — almost to the extent of introducing it into the free states — really foreshadowed the Democratic platform of 1860 which led to the great split in that party, the victory of the Republicans under Lincoln, the subsequent secession of the more radical southern states, and finally the Civil War, for it was inevitable that the North, when once aroused, would bitterly resent such pro-slavery demands. And this great crisis was only the bursting into flame of many smaller fires that had long been smoldering. For generations the two sections had been drifting apart. Since the middle of the seventeenth century, Mason and Dixon’s line had been a line of real division separating two inherently distinct portions of the country.

Naturally, the conflict would at once present intricate military problems, and among them the retention of the Pacific Coast was of the deepest concern to the Union. Situated at a distance of nearly two thousand miles from the Missouri river which was then the nation’s western frontier, this intervening space comprised trackless plains, almost impenetrable ranges of snow-capped mountains, and parched alkali deserts. And besides these barriers of nature which lay between the West coast and the settled eastern half of the country, there were many fierce tribes who were usually on the alert to oppose the movements of the white race through their dominions.

Adapted from “The Story of the Pony Express” by Glenn D. Bradley.

The Civil War Crisis

The fall of Fort Sumter in April, 1861, did not produce the Civil War crisis. In 1858, Lincoln had forewarned the country in his “House Divided” speech. Early in February of 1860, Jefferson Davis, on behalf of the South, had introduced his famous resolutions in the Senate. This document was the ultimatum of the dissatisfied slave-holding commonwealths. It demanded that Congress should protect slavery throughout the domain of the United States. The territories, it declared, were the common property of the states of the Union and hence open to the citizens of all states with all their personal possessions. The Northern states, furthermore, were no longer to interfere with the working of the Fugitive Slave Act. They must respect the Dred Scott decision of the Federal Supreme Court.

Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom. The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney — a staunch supporter of slavery — wrote the “majority opinion” for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

Neither in their own legislatures nor in Congress could the Northern states trespass upon the right of the South to regulate slavery as it best saw fit. These resolutions, demanding in effect that slavery be thus safeguarded — almost to the extent of introducing it into the free states — really foreshadowed the Democratic platform of 1860 which led to the great split in that party, the victory of the Republicans under Lincoln, the subsequent secession of the more radical southern states, and finally the Civil War, for it was inevitable that the North, when once aroused, would bitterly resent such pro-slavery demands. And this great crisis was only the bursting into flame of many smaller fires that had long been smoldering. For generations the two sections had been drifting apart. Since the middle of the seventeenth century, Mason and Dixon’s line had been a line of real division separating two inherently distinct portions of the country.

Naturally, the conflict would at once present intricate military problems, and among them the retention of the Pacific Coast was of the deepest concern to the Union. Situated at a distance of nearly two thousand miles from the Missouri river which was then the nation’s western frontier, this intervening space comprised trackless plains, almost impenetrable ranges of snow-capped mountains, and parched alkali deserts. And besides these barriers of nature which lay between the West coast and the settled eastern half of the country, there were many fierce tribes who were usually on the alert to oppose the movements of the white race through their dominions.

Adapted from “The Story of the Pony Express” by Glenn D. Bradley.

The Civil War Crisis

The fall of Fort Sumter in April, 1861, did not produce the Civil War crisis. In 1858, Lincoln had forewarned the country in his “House Divided” speech. Early in February of 1860, Jefferson Davis, on behalf of the South, had introduced his famous resolutions in the Senate. This document was the ultimatum of the dissatisfied slave-holding commonwealths. It demanded that Congress should protect slavery throughout the domain of the United States. The territories, it declared, were the common property of the states of the Union and hence open to the citizens of all states with all their personal possessions. The Northern states, furthermore, were no longer to interfere with the working of the Fugitive Slave Act. They must respect the Dred Scott decision of the Federal Supreme Court.

Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom. The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney — a staunch supporter of slavery — wrote the “majority opinion” for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

Neither in their own legislatures nor in Congress could the Northern states trespass upon the right of the South to regulate slavery as it best saw fit. These resolutions, demanding in effect that slavery be thus safeguarded — almost to the extent of introducing it into the free states — really foreshadowed the Democratic platform of 1860 which led to the great split in that party, the victory of the Republicans under Lincoln, the subsequent secession of the more radical southern states, and finally the Civil War, for it was inevitable that the North, when once aroused, would bitterly resent such pro-slavery demands. And this great crisis was only the bursting into flame of many smaller fires that had long been smoldering. For generations the two sections had been drifting apart. Since the middle of the seventeenth century, Mason and Dixon’s line had been a line of real division separating two inherently distinct portions of the country.

Naturally, the conflict would at once present intricate military problems, and among them the retention of the Pacific Coast was of the deepest concern to the Union. Situated at a distance of nearly two thousand miles from the Missouri river which was then the nation’s western frontier, this intervening space comprised trackless plains, almost impenetrable ranges of snow-capped mountains, and parched alkali deserts. And besides these barriers of nature which lay between the West coast and the settled eastern half of the country, there were many fierce tribes who were usually on the alert to oppose the movements of the white race through their dominions.

Adapted from “The Story of the Pony Express” by Glenn D. Bradley.

The Civil War Crisis

The fall of Fort Sumter in April, 1861, did not produce the Civil War crisis. In 1858, Lincoln had forewarned the country in his “House Divided” speech. Early in February of 1860, Jefferson Davis, on behalf of the South, had introduced his famous resolutions in the Senate. This document was the ultimatum of the dissatisfied slave-holding commonwealths. It demanded that Congress should protect slavery throughout the domain of the United States. The territories, it declared, were the common property of the states of the Union and hence open to the citizens of all states with all their personal possessions. The Northern states, furthermore, were no longer to interfere with the working of the Fugitive Slave Act. They must respect the Dred Scott decision of the Federal Supreme Court.

Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom. The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney — a staunch supporter of slavery — wrote the “majority opinion” for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

Neither in their own legislatures nor in Congress could the Northern states trespass upon the right of the South to regulate slavery as it best saw fit. These resolutions, demanding in effect that slavery be thus safeguarded — almost to the extent of introducing it into the free states — really foreshadowed the Democratic platform of 1860 which led to the great split in that party, the victory of the Republicans under Lincoln, the subsequent secession of the more radical southern states, and finally the Civil War, for it was inevitable that the North, when once aroused, would bitterly resent such pro-slavery demands. And this great crisis was only the bursting into flame of many smaller fires that had long been smoldering. For generations the two sections had been drifting apart. Since the middle of the seventeenth century, Mason and Dixon’s line had been a line of real division separating two inherently distinct portions of the country.

Naturally, the conflict would at once present intricate military problems, and among them the retention of the Pacific Coast was of the deepest concern to the Union. Situated at a distance of nearly two thousand miles from the Missouri river which was then the nation’s western frontier, this intervening space comprised trackless plains, almost impenetrable ranges of snow-capped mountains, and parched alkali deserts. And besides these barriers of nature which lay between the West coast and the settled eastern half of the country, there were many fierce tribes who were usually on the alert to oppose the movements of the white race through their dominions.

Adapted from “The Story of the Pony Express” by Glenn D. Bradley.

The territories, it declared, were the common property of the states of the Union and hence open to the citizens of all states with all their personal possessions.

The Civil War Crisis

The fall of Fort Sumter in April, 1861, did not produce the Civil War crisis. In 1858, Lincoln had forewarned the country in his “House Divided” speech. Early in February of 1860, Jefferson Davis, on behalf of the South, had introduced his famous resolutions in the Senate. This document was the ultimatum of the dissatisfied slave-holding commonwealths. It demanded that Congress should protect slavery throughout the domain of the United States. The territories, it declared, were the common property of the states of the Union and hence open to the citizens of all states with all their personal possessions. The Northern states, furthermore, were no longer to interfere with the working of the Fugitive Slave Act. They must respect the Dred Scott decision of the Federal Supreme Court.

Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom. The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney — a staunch supporter of slavery — wrote the “majority opinion” for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

Neither in their own legislatures nor in Congress could the Northern states trespass upon the right of the South to regulate slavery as it best saw fit. These resolutions, demanding in effect that slavery be thus safeguarded — almost to the extent of introducing it into the free states — really foreshadowed the Democratic platform of 1860 which led to the great split in that party, the victory of the Republicans under Lincoln, the subsequent secession of the more radical southern states, and finally the Civil War, for it was inevitable that the North, when once aroused, would bitterly resent such pro-slavery demands. And this great crisis was only the bursting into flame of many smaller fires that had long been smoldering. For generations the two sections had been drifting apart. Since the middle of the seventeenth century, Mason and Dixon’s line had been a line of real division separating two inherently distinct portions of the country.

Naturally, the conflict would at once present intricate military problems, and among them the retention of the Pacific Coast was of the deepest concern to the Union. Situated at a distance of nearly two thousand miles from the Missouri river which was then the nation’s western frontier, this intervening space comprised trackless plains, almost impenetrable ranges of snow-capped mountains, and parched alkali deserts. And besides these barriers of nature which lay between the West coast and the settled eastern half of the country, there were many fierce tribes who were usually on the alert to oppose the movements of the white race through their dominions.

Adapted from “The Story of the Pony Express” by Glenn D. Bradley.

The Civil War Crisis

The fall of Fort Sumter in April, 1861, did not produce the Civil War crisis. In 1858, Lincoln had forewarned the country in his “House Divided” speech. Early in February of 1860, Jefferson Davis, on behalf of the South, had introduced his famous resolutions in the Senate. This document was the ultimatum of the dissatisfied slave-holding commonwealths. It demanded that Congress should protect slavery throughout the domain of the United States. The territories, it declared, were the common property of the states of the Union and hence open to the citizens of all states with all their personal possessions. The Northern states, furthermore, were no longer to interfere with the working of the Fugitive Slave Act. They must respect the Dred Scott decision of the Federal Supreme Court.

Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom. The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney — a staunch supporter of slavery — wrote the “majority opinion” for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

Neither in their own legislatures nor in Congress could the Northern states trespass upon the right of the South to regulate slavery as it best saw fit. These resolutions, demanding in effect that slavery be thus safeguarded — almost to the extent of introducing it into the free states — really foreshadowed the Democratic platform of 1860 which led to the great split in that party, the victory of the Republicans under Lincoln, the subsequent secession of the more radical southern states, and finally the Civil War, for it was inevitable that the North, when once aroused, would bitterly resent such pro-slavery demands. And this great crisis was only the bursting into flame of many smaller fires that had long been smoldering. For generations the two sections had been drifting apart. Since the middle of the seventeenth century, Mason and Dixon’s line had been a line of real division separating two inherently distinct portions of the country.

Naturally, the conflict would at once present intricate military problems, and among them the retention of the Pacific Coast was of the deepest concern to the Union. Situated at a distance of nearly two thousand miles from the Missouri river which was then the nation’s western frontier, this intervening space comprised trackless plains, almost impenetrable ranges of snow-capped mountains, and parched alkali deserts. And besides these barriers of nature which lay between the West coast and the settled eastern half of the country, there were many fierce tribes who were usually on the alert to oppose the movements of the white race through their dominions.

Adapted from “The Story of the Pony Express” by Glenn D. Bradley.