After John Brown’s attack in October 1859 on the federal arsenal in Harpers Ferry, Virginia, the United States Senate launched an investigation that became known as the Mason Committee. Yet when this committee released its findings in the summer of 1860, many regarded its efforts as ineffective. “Supporters of both sides were…heavily armed” in the visitor galleries of Congress and, as historian David Reynolds explains, “the Mason Committee knew it had to handle the Harpers Ferry matter with kid gloves.” House Divided has some material available on this committee, including an editorial originally published in the Ohio State Journal. This paper summed up the problem with the investigation in a single sentence – “The man who knew every thing was not summoned, and the man [who] knew nothing was imprisoned.”

The University of California’s Calisphere has several “themed collections” on a number of subjects, including the Gold Rush, that are designed to help educators “quickly find compelling primary sources.” One can use this site to explore how California “changed…dramatically” as a result of the “sudden influx” of people after 1848. The collection is sub-divided into several topics, such as “Environmental Impact” and “Everyday Life and People.” Each one provides a short overview and lots of relevant primary sources. In addition, the collection has links to primary sources related to the Gold Rush – Frontier and pioneer life, western expansion, and more. Also check out the teacher resources, which offer ideas for using primary sources in the classroom.

When Democrats could not agree on a single candidate from the 1860 election, the northern and southern wings selected their own – Stephen Douglas and John Breckinridge, respectively. This development alarmed President John Buchanan, as a letter from August 1860 reveals. If “a re-union between the” northern and southern Democrats did not occur, Buchanan told editor Gerard Hallock that “the Constitution & the union cannot be perpetuated.” Yet the split in the party was not a simple North/South divide. While Hallock’s New York Journal of Commerce had provided able & valuable support…to [Buchanan’s] administration,” other northern Democrats were not as loyal. Calvert Comstock’s Albany (NY) Atlas & Argus had, as Buchanan explained, failed to “sustain the principles of my administration” and “[held] political doctrines in violation of the Constitution of the United States as expounded by the Supreme Court.”

Most students are unfamiliar with the Filibuster of the 1850s. If anything, one associates it with attempts to prevent a vote on bills in the US Senate. T. J. Stiles’ essay in the Gilder Lehrman’s online journal History Now provides a nice overview of the subject and profiles the infamous “Filibuster King” William Walker. “Filibusters were independent adventurers who launched freelance invasions of foreign countries” and most planned “to annex them to the United States,” as Stiles explains. Walker’s actions violated the US Neutrality Act, but he always believed that he was “destined to create a central American empire.” One of Walker’s targets was Nicaragua, which he invaded in 1855 and was later forced out by May 1857. While Stiles discusses this invasion, another short essay provides images from Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper. House Divided also has material on this topic, including more primary sources related to Walker and other filibusters like John A. Quitman.

The University of Richmond Digital Scholarship Lab’s “Voting America” is great resource on US Presidential elections. The site provides a series of maps on each election between 1840 and 2004  that show a variety of different information. For example, the 1860 election map includes layers that breakdown the popular vote by county and counties with small margins of victories (when a second place candidate lost by less than 10 percent of the vote). The site also organizes the maps by topic, such as turnout and third party voting. In addition, this interactive map allows you to select the election data that appears. Also, be sure to check out all of the videos – including this one with Professor Edward Ayers who discusses the elections before the Civil War.

After his victory in the 1860 election, President-Elect Abraham Lincoln quickly started to work on filling the positions in the federal government that were political appointments. While selecting cabinet members was an important task, historian Harold Holzer explains that “Lincoln understood” how critical it was “to purge [the] Democrats” and “guarantee the loyalty of the federal bureaucracy.” Even as Lincoln considered the appropriate response to the secession crisis, he held countless meetings with office seekers who showed up at his temporary office in the Illinois Statehouse (see image to the right – it is #1 on this map). Those unable to travel to Springfield sent numerous letters to recommend either themselves or their friends. Other letters offered Lincoln advice on the appointment process. “Do not be led astray by corrupt Politicians,” as one anonymous author warned. The significant amount of incoming mail even caught the eye of at least one reporter. After a meeting in December, the reporter’s only comment about Lincoln’s office was to note that “[the secretary’s] desk [was] heaped up with letters and documents.” The political activity in Springfield did not escape the notice of Democratic papers like the New York Herald, which used the opportunity to portray their rivals as corrupt. The Herald predicted a “great republican feast” on all “the fat things” and identified the two “cooks” who would direct “the distribution of federal offices” in Pennsylvania.

The Harpers Ferry story does not end when John Brown was captured early in the morning on October 18, 1859. While five members of his group managed to escape (including Barclay Coppoc, who later served in the Union army), others were not as fortunate. Albert Hazlett and John Edwin Cook, who were traveling separately, were both arrested in Pennsylvania. Hazlett was captured on October 22 and sent to Carlisle. (House Divided has a 3D model of the courthouse where his extradition hearing took place). Cook was captured four days later in Franklin County. Both men were sent back to Virginia, where after short trials, they were sentenced to death. The story attracted national attention and reports were published in papers around the country, including from Illinois, Ohio, and Kansas. These reports, however, were not always accurate. The Cleveland Herald explained that someone who “[gave] his name as Wm. Harrison” was “arrested…on the suspicion that he was Capt. Cook.” William Harrison was actually the name that Hazlett used after his arrest. One can also follow the story in papers published in central Pennsylvania. The Valley of the Shadow has two papers from Franklin County – the Franklin Repository and the Valley Spirit. Pennsylvania Civil War Newspapers also has a number of options, including the Gettysburg Compiler and the Lancaster Intelligencer.

Last week I discussed a southern newspaper that argued that only legal means should be used against abolitionists who threatened southern communities. Immediately after the Harpers Ferry Raid, however, this newspaper had a different perspective. The editor was not concerned about abolitionists invading the South, but rather argued in late October 1859 that Harpers Ferry would actually reduce sectional tensions. “We think that a great deal of good will result from the Harper’s Ferry affair – much more than could have been anticipated,” as the Fayetteville Observer explained. Only “fanatics” in the North supported Brown’s raid. The Observer also argued that Harpers Ferry would split the Republican party. An editorial in an Indiana newspaper was one of “many…signs of conservative Republicans [who were] cutting loose from the ultra fragments of their party.” While the Observer later admitted that Brown’s raid had not “heal[ed] the sectional breach,” it is still important to consider this newspaper’s initial reaction.

Though previously mentioned in another post, the The Valley of the Shadow Project has a wide range of primary sources from newspapers, maps, letters, and statistics all available for use in the 7-12 classroom. Broken up chronologically into three periods, the Project archives two communities (Augusta County, Virginia and Franklin County, Pennsylvania) between the years of 1859 and 1870. A particularly good lesson plan by Alice Carter compares the impact and the development of the railroads in both counties using various articles from historical newspapers. The lesson provides a teacher with preselected articles, however, one may choose to either find newspaper accounts that reflect individual class interests or allow students to search for their own, using the newspaper indexes. One special note: teachers could extend the lesson and explore the impact of railroads during reconstruction.

The South’s reaction to John Brown’s attack is often characterized as a violent one. “The shock and fear John Brown had instigated fueled widespread panic…[that] fed into paranoia vented in aggressive acts,” as historian David Reynolds explains. Yet not all southerners accepted violent actions. Protecting their communities remained a high priority, but these southerners argued that extralegal means should not be employed. Not only were existing laws more than sufficient, but violent actions impugned southern honor. Someone who “was tarred and feathered” “for sympathsing [sic] with old Brown” may have “richly deserved his punishment,” but the Greensboro Patriot argued that the best solution was “to let the law take its course.” Other editors in North Carolina reached similar conclusions. “The laws are ample to protect the South,” as the Fayetteville Observer explained in November 1859. The Observer later implied that southern honor was at stake: “in some places the prejudice against Northern men has been carried to an extent at once injurious to the interests and disgraceful to the character of the South.” Brown attacked Harpers Ferry 150 years ago, but as historian William Freehling observers, we still have much to learn about the “subtleties of the southern  response.”