American History Hit - Bleeding Kansas: Start of the Civil War?

Episode Date: November 3, 2025

Was 'Bleeding Kansas' a dress rehearsal for the Civil War to come? During the 1850s pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers clashed in the newly created territory of Kansas. From guerrilla raids and political chaos to the rise of key figures like John Brown, we uncover how this brutal conflict exposed the deep national divide — and ask whether the Civil War truly began long before 1861.Our guest is Dr Kristen Epps is a historian of slavery, the sectional conflict, and the Civil War. She is an associate professor at Kansas State University. Her first book was Slavery on the Periphery.Edited by Aidan Lonergan. Produced by Freddy Chick.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  You can take part in our listener survey here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Want to explore even more history? Sign up to History Hit, where you will discover history from around the world. From the American Revolution to prehistoric Scotland, there is plenty to discover. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries, with a brand new release every week, exploring everything from the ancient world to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com slash subscribe to bring the past alive. Back in the 1850s, years before the American Civil War, a violent struggle ensued over control of the new Kansas Territory.

It was a conflict waged between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers, and for anyone who lived through this turbulent period, they'd one day look back on it as a dresser arousal for the greater war yet to come. In the dusty town of Lawrence, a new day is dawning. A man in a broad-brimmed hat, Ambles across the street towards the hotel when he pauses, sensing something wrong. From beyond the rise, he hears a low rumble, the hoofbeats of horses. Shading his eyes, squinting through the morning haze, he sees the silhouettes of dark riders appear,

brandishing torches and rifles. Raiders! The man shouts out to anyone with an earshot. His cry echoes down the street as panic spreads. doors slam, children sob and scream, the peaceful morning erupts into chaos as yet another bloody chapter unfolds in a grim story, the story of Bleeding Kansas. Thanks for tuning in. I'm Don Wildman, and this is American History Hit. We do a lot of Civil War history on this series because we get a good response to it.

Americans seem hungry to understand the divisions of our past because perhaps we struggle with so much of it in our present. But no matter how much tragic violence and political discord these days, take heart it can't match what was happening in the antebellum period, from the brutality of millions enslaved to riots and beatings, even in the halls of Congress, all that before the war even started. One of the most extreme examples of a nation on edge, or driving itself off a cliff, happened within the territory of Kansas. Bleeding Kansas refers to a seven-year period from 1854 to 61, when the political issues of westward expansion finally exploded in outright violence, in the streets, in the fields, in people's homes, neighbors turning on neighbors, armed bands roaming the countryside,

towns burned to the ground. It was guerrilla warfare on the prairies, in some ways a dress rehearsal for what was to come. Dr. Kristen Epps is a historian of slavery, the sectional conflict, and the Civil War. She is an associate professor at Kansas State University. Her first book was Slavery on the Periphery, the Kansas-Missouri border in the antebellum and Civil War eras, published in 2016 by the University of Georgia Press. Hello, Kristen. Thanks for being on American History at. Thank you for having me. Kay State, that's where you are. Yep. Manhattan, Kansas, right? Yep, the little apple. Lots of what we're going to discuss today happened right there. Yeah, we have a whole history in

eastern Kansas of violence and strife before the Civil War that I think a lot of Americans maybe don't know enough about. Yeah. This history is utterly central to understanding how and why the Civil War happened, but it gets lost in the shuffle because it seems to be about a barely settled Western territory and not the nation itself. But in the day, that was not the case at all. This was a terrifying national story and a precursor of what Americans North and South feared the most. The name Bleeding Kansas is first published in a poem from the New York Daily Tribune, September 13, 1856, to be specific, two years into this turmoil. I'll read a brief verse from it. Far in the West rolls the thunder. The tumult of battle is raging, where Bleeding Kansas is waging

war against slavery. Well, that's a northern perspective, isn't it? It makes the point for northerners opposed to slavery that the time has come to take up arms in this abolitionist struggle. It involves the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854, which we must first define. Can you do so? Absolutely. So the Kansas Nebraska Act was kind of the brainchild of Stephen Douglas, although I want to give credit to Augustus Dodge, who was a senator in Iowa, who actually was the first person to put a bill forward to the Senate proposing the organization of Kansas and Nebraska territories. And the conversation had heated up by the 1850s, because of the settlement of California and Oregon and the thought that there needed to be a transcontinental railroad to connect the east to the west.

And so in December of 1853, Augustus Dodge introduced a bill. It was referred to Douglas's Senate committee. He was chair of the committee on territories. And that's really where Douglas took over. And he brokered a number of deals during January of 1854. and as a Northern Democrat had to persuade Southerners to be on board with his plans. And so to do that, he made a few compromises that ended up having a direct impact on the violence that we see breakout in Kansas. A few of the important things to note about it is that one of the things he agreed to do was to split the territory, which had been called Nebraska, into two parts. Those would be Kansas and Nebraska. And then also he was not the progenitor of this idea, but he thought about popular sovereignty

as the most democratic solution to this question. And so he incorporated popular sovereignty into the act. And what that meant was that the voters of the territory would decide whether or not slavery was allowed, whether or not this territory would enter the union as a slave state or a free state. And this is largely where a lot of the problem comes. But another problematic, at least for the northerners, another problematic component was that the Kansas-Nabrasca Act repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prevented slavery spread into the northern part of the Louisiana purchase.

And this was very controversial because it meant that slavery could spread into places like today we would call, you know, North Dakota, Minnesota, places like that. And for white northerners, this was just simply out of the bounds of discussion. This was not supposed to be part of this act at all. The New York Tribune actually called the Kansas Nebraska Act when its final form was released of deception and a fraud. And Frederick Douglass's paper, the famous abolitionist. He stated that the administration was in, quote, in league with the devil. They have sold themselves to the black demon of slavery. So that gives you a sense of how of how northern African Americans felt about this very controversial piece of legislation. And it did indeed pass

the Senate. Then it went to the House. The vote in the House was a little bit closer, but it still passed. And Franklin Pierce, who was a Democrat and who was supportive of the act, signed it into law on May 30th of 1854. And that's where that's the, you know, the founding date of Kansas territory. Yeah, exactly. You mentioned the geography of what's happening here, but I want to underscore the stakes involved because of the sheer size of this gigantic swath of territory. When we're talking about Nebraska, we're talking about 351,000 square miles. You know, not the state of Nebraska. We understand today. We're talking about what later becomes the Dakota's, Montana, part of Wyoming. It's basically the Rocky Mountains. It stretches all the way from the Canadian border down to what then

becomes the northern border of Kansas, which is originally part of this. As I say, 300,000s, it's just an enormous part. Think of Louisiana purchase plus, you know, the same thing but bigger. Kansas is half of that size, 126,000 miles, but also a huge territory. What was Kansas like at this time, 1854? What had happened to all the tribes that were there? Well, for centuries, the Ka and the Osage had been indigenous to the region. And what we see happen after the Indian Removal Act in 1830 is that what we call emigrant nations, nations that had been in the east and are removed during Indian removal, they end up being sent out west to what becomes Kansas, but was then known as Indian territory. And of course, the United States had acquired this area

in Louisiana Purchase in 1803. And so when this part of the plains, becomes Indian territory, you see at least 25 Indian nations from the East moved out over the course of the 1830s and 1840s. And this includes the Shawnee, the Delaware, the Potawatomi, the Kickapoo, sack and fox. There's many smaller nations. Well, the Kanza are already there and they actually have to be moved away to make room for these immigrant nations. So they undergo their own removal as a result. So this conversation in the Kansas-Dabrasca Act, you know, the act does acknowledge that there need to be treaties signed with these indigenous nations to move them out.

But of course, that's a problem because they had been told that this land would be theirs in perpetuity. That was the agreement that was made. So in 1854, you have some of the nations that were indigenous to the area that are still around like the Kansas. You also have these other indigenous nations that had been removed. You also have some white folks who have been legally allowed to live in Indian territory. And the number of those is not very big.

We think it's somewhere around like maybe 1,400 people. But that includes missionaries, military officers at Fort Leavenworth and soldiers at Fort Leavenworth. Fort Riley had just been founded. And so there's troops there. Indian traders, trappers, people coming up from Santa Fe. So it's actually a very diverse place when you think about it because you have not not only all of these indigenous people, but you also have African Americans who've been enslaved who are on the border. You have white folks.

You have Mexican nationals who are coming up the Senefe Trail to Trade. So it's actually, it's not heavily populated by Americans, but it is actually a very diverse region. Sure. Critical of the story, of course, as you mentioned, Missouri is right to the east. Still is today. Yes. Right there. And that's involved in all the issues having to do with the Missouri competition.

and the 30 years that follow that, where the country was like, okay, we've got this, you know, maybe this is controlled now, and of course it isn't. Missouri is a declared slave state right to the east. The other issue that's central to this whole story is popular sovereignty. Can we define that term? Absolutely. So popular sovereignty was not Douglas's idea. It had been discussed and proposed earlier in the compromise of 1850 by Lewis Cass. But it is essentially the principle that the voters of the territory are best suited to make decisions that pertain to them and to their society and their political structure and their community. And so the argument is that instead of having Congress make decisions about whether or not slavery should exist, it should in fact be left to the people themselves. Now, they say the people, they actually mean voters, which means white men. But the people of the territory themselves are considered the most equipped to make this decision.

And for Stephen Douglas and others who are in his party, he's a Democrat, they think this is the most democratic solution. And so for them, this is, it's not just about slavery's expansion. It's also about their definition of democracy. Yeah, exactly. The problem is that it's a can of worms. Once you open this up, you're asking for a lot of trouble, simply because this is now a clear, land. This is all the story of the American West where white people are going to come in and grab their basically free land, if not very low cost. And this is like a free-for-all kind of time.

This opens the problem, especially with Missouri being right to the east, of the inevitable conflict between those northerners who want land out there and want it to be free and those who have slaves and want it to use it for this reason. And every time we talk about these issues, it's really important for people to realize the South has been suffering from poor soil. You know, they have been not getting the crops that they used to have, and they're looking for land to create new plantations and expand their agricultural industry out there. So this is right in the crosshairs of everything that's happening in this whole conflict right away. So let's just check this off. Nebraska-Kansas Act repeals the Missouri compromise, creates the two territories of

Kansas and Nebraska, and then says, you guys are going to figure this out on your own through popular sovereignty. Yes. Did they realize what would happen? I mean, did everybody know that this had a, you know, it was a powder keg? That's a great question. Douglas was not fully prepared for what came. I don't think that he, I mean, scholars maybe might disagree, but I don't think he was

fully prepared. And I don't think that he understood that he was setting up any sort of race in the sense of people flooding into the territory. I mean, he's a Midwesterner, and so he knows that it's going to be free land or cheap land is going to be incredibly popular. He knows folks are going to come out here, but I don't think he anticipated the violence that was going to come as a result. It's a bit naive, though, considering how brought this all is.

And he's right, you know, he's been through this with the Northwest Territory and all that. So, you know, these issues have been discussed for a long time now. But, you know, to his credit, Charles Sumter hasn't. yet been beaten to death in his own chamber there, so maybe he hadn't understood there. But what really does happen was the settlers rush in, you know, was there a day they said go? Well, they start arriving as soon as there's a suspicion that the act is going to pass. So it passes in May of 1854. That's, well, it's signed in May of 1854. So even before that, people suspect it's going to happen and start coming in and squatting on indigenous land. But yeah, so very, very early on,

people are aware, especially Missourians, that's much easier for them to, you know, hop across the border. But it's also important to remember that a lot of people aren't necessarily coming for political reasons. They just want to make a new start. They want to have opportunity. And so their movement is politicized essentially for them. They aren't all dedicated to either abolition or to the pro-slavery side, but they end up getting caught up in this conflict anyway. And that's where I think it gets really interesting to see how sort of average people are brought into this conflict in some ways unwillingly. But you do, of course, also have folks who come out with, you know, an agenda. Sure. And that happens on both the northern side and the southern side. I always try to remind

people that anti-slavery is a spectrum. You have folks that are abolitionists that are supporters of black equality, that believe black men should have the right to vote, these sorts of things. But you also have a lot of folks who are just like, well, you know, slavery's wrong. I think it's morally wrong. I don't really care about the plight of formerly enslaved people. But I do think slavery is morally wrong. So there's also this gray area as well. But you have organized groups like the New England Emigrant Aid Company. They founded Lawrence. They founded Manhattan. You also have other groups that are coming from Florida and Alabama who are looking to make Kansas a slave. state and they are coming with very clear political motives. One of them, in fact, becomes sort of notorious in the territory for his pro-slavery feelings, even though he was actually born in the north. He comes from Florida, but he was a northerner who'd been basically converted to the Southern cause. And his name was what? Henry Titus. He is an interesting character, not just because he's a Northerner who ends up becoming sympathetic to the Southern way of life, but because he's so

committed to the pro-slavery cause. He owns enslaved people. There's a fort called Fort Titus that's a little bit south of La Compton, which was the pro-slavery capital. And it's basically like a meeting place, kind of a central gathering spot for pro-slavery folks all around the region. It gets attacked in 1856 by freestaters who see it as a fortress of slavery, some to speak. But he's essentially drunk the Kool-Aid, so to speak, of the Southern cause. You're speaking of the most extraordinary thing that happens, which is that the state immediately or very soon after divides. Yes. There are two capitals.

Walk me through that process. So it's complicated, but the short story is that when they hold the territorial elections, there's two elections at the end of 54 and the beginning, well, in the spring of 1855, the candidates that are, are elected are overwhelmingly pro-slavery due to rampant voter fraud, all sorts of problems in these elections. They really are not legitimate by our modern estimation. But they are recognized as legitimate by the Democratic administration. And so what happens is you have a free state movement that believes they are not represented by this government, that this government has usurped democracy. And so they hold a convention and create their own government. So the pro-slavery capital moves around a bit. It's in La Compton for a large part of its time. But the freestaters draft a constitution.

They elect their own governor and they institute their own capital and legislature in Topeka. The problem, though, is that it's not recognized officially. You can't have two territorial governments operating. And so it's seen as an extra legal, you know, entity, which makes it a target for the government, essentially, because you simply can't have two competing governments operating with any authority. I mean, that's clearly not going to work. I'll be back with more American history after this short break. This is a system that has been already tried in truth through the expansion already that's been going on in the United States. I mean, you create a territory you geographically survey it, and there it is.

And then there's a territorial legislature who would be in charge of passing all the local laws. This was all already done. What's extraordinary to me is that income, I guess, advocates from both sides, and they must have to organize the split. What does the federal government do in response to that? Well, the federal government is pro-slavery essentially at this point. The president, Franklin Pierce, is a Democrat. He was supportive of the Kansas Nebraska Act. And so he and the others in his administration recognize the fraudulently elected legislature and the fraudulently elected delegate to Congress.

They have a non-voting delegate to Congress, one single delegate. And so they, again, in their eyes, this Topeka government, as they call it, is treasonous. It is extra legal. It is operating without authority. It's essentially an insurrection. And they do what they can in order. to crack down on this. At one point, they imprisoned the free state governor. His name is Charles Robinson. He actually becomes our first state governor after statehood. They go to the building in

Topeka called Constitution Hall, where the free state legislature is about to meet. And the federal troops that are under the command of the president, you know, the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, disperse this legislature and say, if you don't leave peaceably, we will force you point of arms if necessary. And that's very controversial to use the military to force a civilian body to disperse. There's a lot of ethical questions that go into that. Yeah. This is all about, what, 1855.

So we're one year later that's happening. And, you know, of course, news travels fast to Missouri right next door. And that would be the prompt for so many Missourians to come in thinking this is what they want. They want a slave state. Did the same news encourage immigration from the north? Absolutely. Kansas is front page news in a lot of different cities. And Missourians are especially equipped just simply because of geography.

To come west is much simpler if you live in central Missouri versus if you live in Ohio or Pennsylvania. But there's absolutely conversation all throughout northern newspapers about the Kansas Nebraska Act, about the violence that's going on, this dispersal of the time. Topeka legislature happens in 1856, actually on July 4th, Independence Day. You know, the violence that happens is commonly shared in newspapers. And people are very interested. People back east are very interested because they understand, you know, they don't know what's coming. They can't predict that the Civil War is coming in 1856. But they know that they need to pay attention because what's happening is not, well, frankly, it's not healthy for your country to see this kind of violence break out.

Exactly. I mean, what about the popular sovereignty? When is that going to be, you know, recognized as the answer to anything? Does is that given up on very quickly? Well, no. You know, the Kansas Nebraska Act lays it out and it is still enforced. The problem is there's no provision for when that deciding vote is taken. So each side wants it to be taken, surprise, surprise, when they are in the majority, when they have the most voters. But that flux. But that flux. You know, you have people coming into the territory. You have people also leaving the territory. They're not able to make it. And so they go back home. And so the population shifts from being a more southern population early on into being a more northern or Midwestern population as the years progress. But there's no, again, there's no set rule of the vote will be taken on this day and this year.

I mean, I forgot my main question, which is, does popular sovereignty only apply one that's made a state and not just a territory? Yes. So the vote is when we enter the union, what is our status going to be? Well, that's a key point. So everybody knows they have a lead-up time to get enough population in there to make this one thing or the other. And that really is the push of it. There's two terms that come out of this. And one of them is the name of your athletic teams. The Border Ruffian versus the Jayhawk. Can you explain these terms? Sure, the Jayhawk was, today is the mascot of the University of Kansas and Lawrence, but it had a long history before that. Essentially, Jayhawkers are to be perhaps unsharitable, sort of marauding gorillas on the free state side. So they do have an ideological bent towards abolition, but they also can be a little bit opportunist in terms of just, you know, we'll take stuff regardless of which side you're on. if we want your, you know, if we want to loot your home. So they have a little bit of a sketchy reputation in some ways. And then the border ruffians is the name for the Missourians that come over,

that that vote illegally in elections that burn down part of Lawrence in 1856. And the terms that are used for border ruffians, that's actually the polite term. The term that often is used is that they are called pukes. Yeah. And just the rhetoric around this period is just, I mean, it's very intense. And so they are, but they are doing the same kinds of things. They come through. They know that your free state.

They will, you know, maybe burn down your home or set your field on fire, you know, things like that because the stakes for this are so high that anything they can do, either side can do to harm their opposition will potentially have really, really important repercussions for the future of the nation. Yeah, exactly. Okay, keep in mind, we have no federal military presence but for these forts, mainly for migration of pioneers and so forth. There's no National Guard to come in and solve this problem. This is going to be fought out on the state level, or at least a territorial level. There are many different events having to do with this violence. I'll start you with May 1956. There's an attack on Lawrence. Can we talk about

this representative of other events? Lawrence is founded by the New England immigrant aid company and is seen as kind of the abolitionist capital. Topeka, despite the legislature ending up there, is actually not very well populated. Lawrence is sort of the head of this movement. This is in fact where James Lane, who's a famous Jayhawker lives. The territorial governor, Charles Robinson, lives there. And it's seen as a haven if you are an abolitionist. And there are warrants out for the arrest of abolitionists due to some of these situations that they find themselves in.

And one of their places to hide is Lawrence. So the sheriff of the county, Lawrence is in Douglas County, is on the pro-slavery side. He attempts to arrest people in Lawrence and ends up being rebuffed essentially. And so he comes back in May of 1856 with a few hundred men. somewhere around probably 700 or 750 men. And his task is to basically disarm the citizens, to destroy any abolitionist institutions that he can. They place a cannon on a nearby hill. This is the hill where the University of Kansas is today, Mount Oriad. And they try to seal off the town and they set fire to both of the publishing houses. They throw the printing presses and type

into the river. They burn down the free state hotel. They go after the... the territorial governor's home. They don't meet a lot of resistance. People I think are pretty surprised. There's only one casualty, which is sort of funny. One member of Jones's posse, a brick fell on his head and he died. But it really signaled what lengths the pro-slavery side would go to. If you harbor abolitionists, write the messages, we'll burn down your town and we'll destroy whatever we can. And that's kind of the point of all the violence throughout this entire period is they're trying to shut down. the voice, the advocacy for one side or the other. Interestingly, the printing press is always getting tossed in the rivers, isn't it? They drag it out and that's the big symbol happens elsewhere as well. May 1856, John Brown shows up. His notorious massacre is in response to this attack, right?

Yes, absolutely. So he had been in the territory. He came in 1855 following some of his adult sons. He actually ended up having 20 children total. So he has little kids in the household, and he has four. full-grown married children. But he has settled in Osawatomi, which is south of Lawrence. And he and some other militia, he kind of has a crew that he rides with. They hear about what's going on in Lawrence. They ride north to try to help. They get there too late.

Then they turn around and head back towards Osatomy. But the sacking of Lawrence inflames John Brown in a really incredible way. He ends up with five of his sons, some others, including his son-in-law. He ends up going overnight on May 24th, so this is three days after the sack on Lawrence, going through in the middle of the night to some pro-slavery cabins along Pottawatomie Creek, and they murder five pro-slavery men. Now, these men were not, they were not slave owners. They did generally support the pro-slavery costs.

This was for Brown an opportunity. for revenge, but it's more than that. This Potawatomi massacre, as we know it, is part of what John Brown considers a holy war. So I don't condone what he did, but if we want to try to understand his perspective, his perspective is that the Sack of Lawrence is a declaration of war. His perspective is that the administration,

the U.S. government, by supporting the pro-slavery side, has initiated this war. And so his actions are a response to a war that has already begun. And for him, I know you've had other folks on the podcast talk about John Brown. For John Brown, slavery is a sin against God. There is no debate. There is no conversation to be had. And so it is his mission, his divine mission, to root out slavery and to root out supporters of slavery whenever possible. And for him, this is an opportunity. Yeah. You've got a time when, you know, a lot of people are motivated by just keep the country together,

which, of course, it's not going to happen, but we're only a few years before that. So things are very heated in that department. Seeing this thing as clearly as John Brown does is a radical position at this moment. You know, most people are processing this through, or at least seeing it through that lens of we've got to keep everybody happy enough to keep this thing together. John Brown represents the other side of that, and he will carry forth to Harper's Ferry, if you want to run down that thing. He loses his son killed in the months following. But I want to underscore what you just said. This is brutal violence we're talking about.

This is, you know, execution-style killings. And it just makes things even worse. Absolutely. It inflames. I mean, this is absolutely from page news across the rest of the United States. Yeah. And there are, just as there were after Harper's very many thoughts about. you know, his actions. And to what extent he was, you know, we still have this debate today

as historians. To what extent was he a hero? To what extent was he a terrorist? It depends on whose perspective you look at and the context in which you are examining those questions. Yeah. After the break, we'll be back to hear how even the military eventually weighs into this. Kristen, we think of bleeding Kansas as so much of a people's fight. I mean, it's way out there in the Midwest. We're far from Washington. But the military did play a role in this conflict, didn't it? Absolutely. It's a complicated story because the military is bound to follow the orders of the president. He's the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. But they are also expected to be impartial. They are not expected to be taking sides. But their role becomes politicized simply by the fact that this so-called legitimate government, I say so-called because freestaters called it the bogus legislature. But this so-called legitimate government is, you know, the the government that they serve. And when we talk about the dispersal of the Topeka legislature that I mentioned before, the officer in charge, Colonel Edwin Sumner, is very troubled by the conversation about using armed force. And he, in fact, goes back and forth with the governor, back and forth with the president, the secretary of war at the time is Jefferson Davis. They go back and forth because using Military force against civilians is, as we even see today, controversial.

And they are sometimes perceived as being a tool of the pro-slavery party. And so Edwin Sumner is very careful to limit the use of federal troops whenever possible. And he understands that it needs to be used judiciously, which is why when he goes to disperse this Topeka legislature, he comes armed. He comes with two companies of cavalry. There are also troops that come from Fort Riley. But when he goes into the building and says, essentially, you know why I am here, you are not allowed to me. You are, you know, essentially a treasonous body.

You need to disperse. He says this is one of the hardest and most painful things that he has to do. And there are stories. I don't know how true they are that he actually sort of sheds a tear over this because he understands the implications of this. But to go back to the point you made earlier, his job is to keep the peace. Yeah. And so he is doing whatever he can to prevent more violence from happening. In 1856 is a year where there's already been a lot of violence.

And so he really is, he's using federal power and the power of the military in the way that he believes will be most beneficial to everyone, which is keep the peace to try to prevent more bloodshed. Are the East Coast media outlets covering this like a war? In some ways, yes. They definitely talk about, they call some of these battles. They're really, I think, by many people's definition, more skirmishes in many cases. But they call these battles. They are very much invested in it because, again, they may not understand the full implications of this. They may not understand that the Civil War is about to come.

You know, they don't have that foresight. but they know that what happens in Kansas is going to have an impact on public opinion and on policy as well. Sure, yeah. 1859, a guy named John Doey figures. He's an anti-slavery guy. He helps enslaved people escape from Kansas. He's captured and imprisoned in Missouri and then dramatically rescued by fellow abolitionists. It's quite a story.

It is, absolutely. So in the midst of all of this conflict, I want to always emphasize to people that there are enslaved people already in the territory. There are anywhere from two to maybe 400 people being enslaved actively. And you have also a very, very busy underground railroad since Missouri is so close. Inslave people from Missouri, even places like Arkansas come up through Kansas on their way to try to get to like, say, Iowa, for instance. So John Brown is active in this. Other folks are too. But John Doy is one example of an abolitionist who really.

really is living out his creed, right, in a very literal sense. And so in January of 1859, he and his son Charles and a couple of free black men and some abolitionists are helping 11 African Americans leave Lawrence and they're bound for Doy says they're bound for Iowa, but they're bound for freedom. And they are heading north from Lawrence. This includes men, women, and children who are all from the border region. And as they proceed north, a posse of armed men stops their wagons and Doi gets out and, you know, confronts them. It was not uncommon at the time for slave catchers to prowl the countryside and look for enslaved people who had escaped, but also anyone who was a person of color could be kidnapped and taken into slavery.

And it appears from later evidence that one of his compatriots had betrayed them and that's how this posse knew where they were. But you're exactly right. They end up taking all of these people captive. Doi and his son Charles are imprisoned. The enslaved people are imprisoned as well. One of them, Bill Riley is able to escape. But most of them, as far as we know, are either sold into slavery or they are claimed by their alleged owners. And this is a real moment in border history because they're taken first to Weston and then to Platt City. These are just across the border in Missouri. And these are absolute hotbeds of pro-slavery sentiment. And so Doi is imprisoned. He's put on trial. The first trial is a mistrial and his son gets released. But he is tried a second time. And his lawyers file an appeal when he's convicted.

But he's in prison for almost six months. His health is deteriorated. He's very fearful for his life. He's surrounded by people who wish him dead and regularly. tell him that. And it's really exciting. It's really an exciting tale, though, because on July 23rd, a visitor comes by and slips him a note that said, be ready at midnight. And that evening, a group of 10 abolitionists that he knew from the Lawrence area, and one of them was his son, they break him out of jail and race essentially back to Lawrence. They arrived there on July 25th to crowds of people who

are, you know, praising their actions. They get the nickname the Immortal 10. There's this really famous picture of the 10 abolitionists standing behind him. And he's seated on a chair because he has had recurring health issues, so he's not that healthy. But he's then considered a fugitive and he has to go back east to leave, you know, he leaves the territory for his own safety. But what we call the Doi Rescue is really a resounding success for the abolitionist side. It once again shows I think, though, for those of us looking back with hindsight, the extent to which the violence had magnified to the point that you are imprisoning people, you are abusing people, and you really have no recourse through the traditional, you know, law enforcement system. And so essentially they, you know, he couldn't get a fair trial and so they bust him out of jail. So much of Bleeding Kansas is an example of what could have happened in many different.

territories had the Civil War not come along, I suppose. You know, in another way, also, what happens in Virginia, where you have a West Virginia and a Virginia could have been the case in Kansas, I suppose. There might have been a division there. It's the timing of this that really is important and significant in terms of the telling of the Civil War. But in your opinion, how much of this was a dress rehearsal for what was to come? I would argue it definitely was. And you're right, it comes, you know, we have to think about the context. It comes at a time when there's a lot of other things going on. This is not coming. in a vacuum. You have the Dred Scott decision in 1857. You have obviously the caning of Charles Sumner,

which does have a Kansas connection in 1856. A few years before that, you had the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe. Of course, in 1859, you have the raid on Harper's Ferry. And so the context of the time is such that whatever kind of violence you're talking about, whether it's personal violence, whether it's rhetorical violence, the violence. The violence is has clearly ramped up. Sure. And it's all being cast in that light, you know, and the media is part of this. The newspapers are telling the story, this is what's happening just to Kansas, but could be part of what's happening in the United States. It's always being scaled up.

And the rehearsal for Civil War, you know, historians, again, we have hindsight so we look back and we can see that. You know, to what extent did people of the time realize it? I think some did. I think some didn't. I think John Brown, for his many faults, understood this very, very, very. clearly. I think African Americans who have, of course, the highest stakes in this because it infects them, you know, their people, they see the stakes of this. So it depends who you ask. Yeah. And we, you know, I've done it several times to define this as a seven-year period, but bleeding Kansas doesn't end. It extends even further than that period. Absolutely. Just like we say the Underground Railroad doesn't end when the war starts. It just

ramps up and takes a different form. So I would say that the Civil War, in one, sense begins in Kansas. Interesting. 1861, Kansas enters the union as a free state. Was it done on that popular sovereignty? Yeah, yeah. The process to get there was very complicated. There were multiple constitutions that were sent to Congress, one of those being the Topeka Constitution that was formed by this extra legal Topeka government. But the final constitution, the one that becomes the Kansas State Constitution is the Yandotte Constitution. And by that point, as we get into like 1859 and 1860, the partisan violence has decreased significantly. Most of the voters in the territory are Midwestern or northern. The first legislature was pro-slavery, very pro-slavery. But by this

point, the legislature is now controlled by anti-slavery residents. And so the situation has quieted down. Is Kansas declared as a free state before the beginning of the Civil War? Kansas enters the union as a free state in January of 1861. So this is before Fort Sumter. Right. But after South Carolina, Mississippi, and then later like Florida and these other states have seceded. So it's in this very sort of liminal space where secession has started. The Confederate government is sort of just kind of forming, but Fort Sumter hasn't happened yet. I mean, 1863, the border ruffians from Missouri attack Lawrence again, it happens, and they kill up to 200 people in that massacre. It's absolutely one of, if not the worst civilian massacre of the Civil War. It's up there. In that case, unlike the sack of Lawrence that had happened earlier where the targets were sort of very specific, they burned down large parts of the town. Yes, close to 200 men and boys are killed, often quite violently. They burn down,

Many buildings, many people are injured, and the town really has to rebuild from a very traumatic and, you know, frankly, shocking experience. Kristen, I'm fascinated by the origin of states in general, but especially Kansas. I mean, it has a very unique culture, doesn't it? Absolutely. And I think even today, Kansans are very proud of their history and of the fact that we were on the side of abolition and that we were supporters of the union during the Civil War. Dr. Kristen Epps is a historian of slavery, sectional conflict, and the Civil War Associate Professor at Kansas State University.

Thank you so much, Kristen. How can people find out what you're working on these days? Well, I have a website, Kristen Epps.com, but mostly what I've been spending my time doing in the last couple of years is I'm co-authoring a history of Kansas from the beginning to about 2018, 2020. And it will talk about bleeding Kansas and it will talk about the Civil War. but it's intended to just give a very readable, accessible overview of the entire state, and that hopefully will be out in 2026. Unique place. Thank you so much. Nice to meet you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me. Hey, thanks for listening to American History Hit.

You know, every week we release new episodes, two new episodes dropping Mondays and Thursdays, all kinds of content from mysterious missing colonies to powerful political movements to some of the biggest battles across the centuries. Don't miss an episode. By hitting like and follow, you help us out, which is great. But you'll also be reminded when our shows are on. And while you're at it, share it with a friend.

American History Hit with me, Don Wildman. So grateful for your support.