“THE success of the Republican candidate for the Presidency in the United States will prove one of the greatest events of modern times” –   Economist, November 24, 1860.

This editorial, along with two others from 1865, were just posted in the From the archive section of the Economist’s website. This British newspaper considered the Republican victory in November 1860 as such an important moment in large part because the pro-slavery “Southern party” had finally been defeated. “The tide [had]… turned” and, as the Economist argued, it marked “the commencement of a permanent and sustained movement” against slavery in the United States.

Also be sure to read this editorial on Lincoln’s assassination. Some might be surprised at the conclusion that Lincoln’s death would affect more than just Americans – “It is not merely that a great man has passed away, but” as the Economist explained, “he has disappeared at the very time when his special greatness seemed almost essential to the world.” While the Economist has other editorials available on a variety of subjects, including President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, only subscribers can access them.

On this day 150 years ago an article was published in the New York Times giving the figures for the amount of police arrests in the past twelve months. Though crime had decreased throughout the year, it still was higher than anyone wished or expected to see.

The statistics didn’t necessarily reflect the amount of people that were convicted, but it’s interesting and also a bit discouraging that even today, 150 years later, there’s still a high level of crime. Is it too out of the question to think that something needs to seriously be done if there’s no real difference after 150 years?

Like we are doing today, 150 years ago Americans across the country were analyzing the fallout of the most recent elections. The 1858 midterm elections were of considerable importance for the Civil War Era, and the results of the election made great strides to divide the nation politically. As this New York Times article from 1858 indicates, the victory of Stephen A. Douglas over Abraham Lincoln in Illinois made him “more powerful at Washington than the President with all his patronage.” Today we have the leading figures in the two major parties advocating Americans to come together, but 150 years ago the parties themselves were decisively split. The original article, as well as its transcript, is available on the House Divided website.

Two websites currently stand out for the access they provide to primary sources about the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.  The first from Douglas O. Linder’s quite exceptional “Famous Trials” series.  Linder, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) has put together invaluable primary source packets on trials from Socrates to the 9/11 hijackers.  His archive on the Johnson impeachment trial is quite good and contains both primary sources and useful background information such as a timeline and bibliography.   There’s not too many visual bells & whistles here, but the content is strong.  A more professional-looking site and one that also contains significant content comes from HarpWeek.  Their site relies on over 200 excerpts, including wonderful cartoons and images, from Harper’s Weekly magazine during the period 1865-1869.

This article published by the New York Times gives a glimpse of the tension of the raid from the perspective of those seeking to end it. The document is part of a wider collection of Harper’s Ferry material on A House Divided.

I want to highlight an advertisement for William Still’s Underground Railroad that is available on the Ohio Historical Society website. Published in Cleveland Gazette on November 11, 1883, the ad claims that Still’s book “[was] one which must prove interesting and profitable to every reader.” If students read excerpts from Still’s book, some might want to see how the publisher tried to sell it in the 1880s. You can also get the full text of the Underground Railroad from Their Own Words.

I want to point out an article that the Chicago Press & Tribune published on July 1, 1858. Almost two months before the first 1858 debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, the Tribune provided an account of the exchange between those two Illinois politicians in October 1854. Even though the Tribune described the event “from memory,” some might still find the article an interesting read.

The Atlantic’s archive also has selected full text articles published between 1857 and November 1995. While a number of interesting articles are available, I wanted to point out one from the October 1860 issue. A month before the November 1860 election, James Russell Lowell discussed the four candidates and potential outcomes. Lowell realized that “this election [was] a turning-point in our history” because “[even though] there [were] four candidates, there [were] really…two parties, and a single question that divides them.” While many Americans were concerned about a Republican victory, Lowell concluded that Abraham Lincoln “[had] proved both his ability and his integrity” and his party “[had] no hostility to the South.” While thisarticle is a long one, some might be able to use it in their classes.

Exactly 150 years ago today, federal troops entered Salt Lake City in order to securely install federally appointed governor, Alfred E. Cumming, and removed the Mormon governor of nearly a decade, Brigham Young.  The article The Brink of War explains the Utah War and the history of how this Morman Zion gained its statehood.  What the article does not clarify however is the conflicting terminology of the Mormon War and the Utah War.  The Mormon War was a bloody and bitter conflict between the federal government and the Mormon population in the Utah territory, during Buchanan’s presidency.  What the article describes as the “bloodless” Utah War is the negotiations that occurred at the tail end of the conflict.  House Divided has several newspapers, letters, and other documents about the Mormon War.

Before the Supreme Court announces a decision in important cases, newspapers often try to predict the verdict. This also occurred in the 19th Century and some history students might be interested to see what editors said before the Dred Scott decision was announced after President James Buchanan’s inauguration in March 1857. Two months earlier the Washington Union explained that the Supreme Court had already reached “a decision” that held “the law of 1820 to be unconstitutional.” In addition, the article also accurately noted that northern Justice Robert Grier would approve such a verdict. Some students might be interested to see how the Washington Union’s prediction compared to the Supreme Court’s actual decision.