minute here, stay focused on the 1852 electric. traditionally, of course, the whigs -- it was the whigs who had appealed to native born americans especially evangelical protestants in the north and it was the whigs who oppose the unrestricted immigration and short naturalization periods for citizenship. you know, in some states the naturalization period was very short, five years. actually it's interesting in some states, recent immigrants could vote without becoming citizens, so laws varied. the whig dilemma in 1852 could be described or expressed this way, are you going to continue if you're, you know, asking the question here of a whig party leader, is your political party going to continue to just kiss good-bye to all of those new voters, or are you going to try to somehow integrate them to

somehow attract their support? so here's the dilemma. retain your traditional supporters, but continue to turn away the growing body of new americans or, of course, here's the dane, alienate your old supporters and make a play for these immigrant groups. you know, otherwise, they would simply just continue to flock to flood the ranks of the democratic party. in retrospect, we can see that the whigs did the wrong thing, at least in terms of survival. they opted for changing their approach. they opted to make a play for this new immigrant vote. remember we talked about this a couple -- a few lectures ago, we talked about what they call negative reference group voting? and we talked about the cultural factors, cultural, religious factors to help us understand why people voted the way they did in the 19th century especially in the second-party

system and you can imagine how the traditional constituency of the whig party especially in the north is going to be at the very least confused and at the worst really antagonized by this new approach. so the whigs opt for a risky strategy to go after the immigrants, in 1852 they nominate genuiera general winfi, another mexican war hearer to be their standard-bearer. in the campaign they downplayed traditional issues. they down -- they downplayed their traditional opposition to unrestricted immigration. they downplayed some of their traditional issues like temp temperance, prohibition laws that they had long been champions of and tried to portray franklin pearce as

anti-catholic which is quite a stretch. there's scott on the left and franklin pearce on the right. pearce was a brigadier general from the war with mexico and democratic -- excuse me, a party politician and scott, as i said, one of the -- well the most important general in that war. and so they try to portray pearce as anti-catholic. this proves to be a huge miscalculation as people are not suddenly convinced that the whig party immigrants are certainly not suddenly convinced that the whig party is now their friend. so immigrants continue to support the democratic party and the whigs thereby, remove the last major source of difference, remember we said difference is important in a healthy two-party system. they removed the last major source of difference between themselves and their democratic opponents. the democrats as i said had

nommed franklin pearce. senator from new hampshire, more recently a brigadier general during the war with mexico, the campaign was especially dirty, even by 19th century standards and personal. a lot of -- we would describe today as attack ads against the two candidates, the whigs had a lot of nasty things to say about franklin pearce. said that he had personal problems including alcoholism, they said that he was in the -- because of his time in the mexican war, he was the victor of many a hard-fought bottle. i thought it was a clever saying. anyway, you can imagine with the slavery issue taken out of the picture, the two parties are really kind of grasping at straws trying to figure out how to appeal to the electorate and especially now in the whigs are

trying to portray themselves as suddenly, you know, pro-immigration. there seem to be few real issues separating the major parties. and this appears to undermine popular confidence in them. at the same time, some believe that the economic prosperity of the 1850s may also play into the picture. at the time the baltimore sun commented, "unexampled prosperity renders it difficult to create excitement about party politics, end quote. so there's some indication that people were simply interested in economic prosperity and not that interested in voting. voting analysis for 1852 suggests that the decline and support for the whigs did not translate into support for the democrats, rather, abstentions, that is, eligible voters who just decide to stay home, those climbed markedly from the previous presidential election. again, further evidence of a

lack of public confidence in the second-party system. right, if the traditional parties aren't meeting your needs, aren't addressing your concerns, you're going to either stay home, or look elsewhere. maybe you'll do both. so the whigs end up losing badly, predictably in 1852 to franklin pearce and the democratic party. most significant, however, was that the two major parties were almost completely silent on the political issues that most interested americans during the middle 1850s. two of them we've already talked about a fair bit, right? talked about the slavery expansion, slavery extension issue, number one, and number two we talked a little about immigration. on both those question, the parties are virtually silent in 1852. that alienates a lot of voters, oh, a third issue which often

doesn't get much attention was probably more important on the state level but still was an issue is the question of temperance. temperance laws are what was sometimes called the main law which was a prohibition law first passed in maine back in the 1840s, that also was an issue, of course, it was an issue again that traditionally the whigs had championed especially in the north. but all of those issues were not mentioned, were hardly mentioned at all during the 1852 campaign. okay, i want to go back to the question of immigration for a moment here and see how the public alien nation from the two parties gives fruit to the development of a new party, which some people think might have been the replacement we know ultimately, of course, in retrospect now, the gift of hindsight we know it wasn't but at the time some people thought

might be the replacement for the declining whig party and this is the no nothing or american party. >> okay, so what's happening. 1850s we notice realignment, the democratic party is changing. it doesn't -- it survives but doesn't survive unchanged. age new parties vie for the support of people disenchanted with the present political situation. for many americans something had gone wrong. the minor party that's merge in the 1850s are addressing the e question what's gone wrong. what is the most serious threat to the republic and to self-government? what's the most serious threat? is it slavery's expansion ask? is that it? a lot of northerners would have said yes. some southerners would have said yes defending their right to

expand and take their personal property anywhere. some would say immigration. i want to turn and look at that group of the question of the -- for voters, the people who are most concerned about immigration as the primary issue. as we said the influx of roman catholics had spawned anti-catholic nativists, so-called no-nothing lodges, how they're given that name, right. their secret. so when you're asked to talk about this group you belong to you're supposed to say i know nothing, right? so the name sort of stuck. nativists came from lower middle class backgrounds and they feared both the political and economic consequences of the arrival of thousands especially, thousands of immigrations, especially catholics through the

democratic party nativists believed that the catholics could secretly control the government. and they talked about catholics being loyal to a foreign power, to foreign potentate in the form of the pope. thousands of immigrants, the nativists lower wages for workers in the cities and push native-born americans into what one editor called, one navivist newspaper editor called, pushing us into the western wilds. so the political side of the issue here was probably the strongest for the nativists, that is, they were convinced that catholics had an inordinate influence within the national government, especially through their agent, the democratic party. you know, in the same way that free soil people in the north were concerned that southerners had an inordinate influence in

the national government through the agency of the democratic party. right? so similar kinds of language was used to describe the situation, describe this threat to republican government. so like the earlier free soilers, and like the later republicans, we'll talk about the origins of the republican party next time, the no nothings used traditional republican small "r," rhetoric to portray catholics as a threat to republican government. it was the catholic church now rather than the slave power that was undermining true republican principles. as you can see in our cartoon here, you've got -- oops. here we g you've got the two different immigrant groups here illustrated what are they doing? they're stealing the ballot box,

right? who is this? germans drinking their lager beer. i don't know how you guys would know that but i'll move on quickly and we, of course, the irish with their whiskey who are also always involved in rioting and so you got them stealing the ballot box, so, again, it was, you know, how are these immigrant groups undermining the traditional political order, republican political order in america. catholicism said the nativists was a despotic faith, after all, it was organized hi e ed hierar and catholics supposedly wanted to control public education and wasn't public education the bulwark of the republican system and not just the bulwark of the republican system, but also a

way in which the evangelical protestant faith was passed on -- this may strike us as odd today but public schools in those days are often run by religious societies and there's bible reading in the schools and so on. so nativists are concerned about catholics infiltrating the democratic party. the democrats were viewed as the toad di toadis of the catholics and the no nothings saw themselves as a kind of people's party opposed to the corrupt traditional parties perverted by the catholic interests as they called it. the formal name of the party was the american party. and they were very successful especially at the state level in the mid-1850s, 1853, '45, 55, they were quite successful in --

well, in states like massachuset massachuset massachusetts. the no nothings won several key state elections because there was a general feeling among the voters that they wanted to throw off the old party organizations. in o w american party was a kind of know party or anti-party party. right? in that it was really saying, hey, we're different from the other two conventional traditional parties. they wanted to destroy, they said, the power of hack politicians and party wire pullers and bag men. they pushed for party nominees being named by votes in local lodges rather than, you know, in huge national nominating conventions that could be manipulated by, you know, the proverbial men in smoke-filled rooms. and there's some indication as

political historians have analyzed the sort of people who supported and participated in the american party, there's some indication that, yes, indeed, these american parties, these know nothing folk were different. they came from lower socioeconomic strata, they tended to be younger, that's interesting, most of the candidates were under 35 years old. less wealthy, less affluent than their opponents than the tradition at parties, and they often held more modest occupations such as clerks or artisans. now, prior to the rise of the republican party in the midwest, as i said we'll focus on that mostly next time, prior to the rise of the republicans, you could be excused for thinking in, say, 1853, '54 that is this going to be the new major party, that is, the american party is going to really be the replacement for the whig party.

until the republican party emerges and shows significant northern support, it's unclear whether or not the know nothings might actually end up being -- might actually go on to become the major political opposition to the democratic party. there was some support for the american party in the south, and there was support at the top of national politics too. we'll see how millard fillmore later runs for the american party. there's certainly some support for anywayivism among whigs given their traditional position toward immigrants and that's not too surprising. all right. let me move on here. now, all of that is background to what then happens in 1854 with another congressional compromise. and this time we're also talking

about the issue that keeps coming up, the issue of the expansion of slavery into the territories. here, however, we're talking about the introduction of legislation to organize a portion of that vast swath of territory that had been purchased from france by president jefferson, the louisiana purchase. a large portion of that territory had never really been organized, and congress turns to address that issue in 1854. historians have long scratched their heads about, well, why did they turn to it then? couldn't they see -- couldn't, you know, northern politicians in particular see how dangerous an issue this slavery extension issue was and that maybe it would be good to have a little bit of a respite from the debate? but for a variety of reasons,

senator steven a. douglas of illinois, the little giant, there he is in our two portraits there. the little giant introduces legislation which comes to be called the kansas-nebraska act. and what's he up to? well, in part he wants to organize at least some of that portion, the northern portion or central and northern portion of the louisiana purchase territory. he wants to organize that. why is he so interested in organizing it? variety of explanations here. and i think one shouldn't necessarily zero in on just one. douglas was a devoted unionist and he'd been a champion of western development for some time. in his hopes to provide a kind of balance between the north/south conflict that had characterized politics for decades. so definitely douglas is a committed unionist, of course,

his unionism, his commitment to the union dove-tails rather nicely and neatly with his own ambitions, interested in getting the democratic nomination for the presidency. and he recognizes that as a northern democrat, he needs southern support, but, of course, the -- it's a tricky balancing act, right? how do i be a successful -- how can i be a successful national politician given the sectional realignment that's occurring in american politics in the mid-1850s? how do i do that? how do i pull that off? how do i pull off that magic trick? douglas, it seem, hoped the democrats could use this, that is, use this issue of, you know, organizing this territory, democrats could use this as a party issue, championing the old democratic party war horse, you know, popular sovereignty in the territories. so douglas and others sought to

facilitate the building of a transcontinental railroad line. and douglas from the state of illinois says, i says i kind of that line to be through illinois. that would certainly benefit my state, and the best way to do that is one of the ways to ensure that is to make sure -- is to make sure there'd be a northern route would be to organize some of that territory. certainly that northerly transcontinental line would greatly benefit his state and the section and douglas thought, proved to be a serious miscalculation in the long run. douglas thought i could do this with some southern support if we open up at least technically, potentially if we open up some of that territory, that organized -- previously unorganized territory to the possible expansion of slavery, but, of course, douglas being a

good democrat wants to allow popular sovereignty to determine the status of slavery in those territories. i'm going to leave you today with a question. in order to do that, in order to organize that territory, in order to ensure that popular sovereignty determines the status of slavery in those two territories there they are kansas and nebraska. unfortunately you have to repeal the missouri compromise. because remember the missouri compromise stipulated that slavery would not expand into any new territory north of the latitude 36, 30. and that is opening up a huge can of worms. and we'll turn and look at the consequences of that that are very serious, indeed, next time. thank you.

lectures in history airs each saturday at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern and sundays at 1:00 p.m. we feature classroom lectures on different topics and eras in american history. to keep up with american history tv during the week or to send us your questions and comments, follow us on twitter. we're at twitter.com/c-spanhistory. here's a new website for

american history tv where you can find our schedules and preview our upcoming program. watch featured video from our regular weekly series as well as history tweets. history in the news and social media from facebook, youtube, twitter and four square. follow american history tv all weekend every weekend on c-span 3 and online at c-span.org/history. >> recently, american history tv and c-span's local content vehicles visited shreveport, louisiana, to showcase its history and literary culture founded in 1836, sheareveport h a population of about 200,000 people and located about 250 miles northwest of baton rouge. >> the inevitable end, retribution, bonny parker who died as they lived, by the gun. the officers were on the left

side of the road nearest the driver, thus explains the fact that bonnie's body at more bullet holes than clyde. any one of these bullets would have been fatal to both, but after having killed 14 people, most of whom were officers of the law and having come safely through so many gun battles, it did not seem advisable to fire just one bullet. >> bonnie and clyde were probably some of the most notorious gangsters of the 1930s crime era in the united states. because their crime story began in texas, east texas and involved louisiana, they're very sort of connected to the 1930s story of shreveport, as well. probably most people associate bonnie and clyde with a very intense two-year period from 1932 to 1934 when they were involved in a string of armed robberies and murders throughout this part of the united states. we think that bonnie and clyde

actually met initially in 1930 when bonnie parker was working as a waitress in dallas, texas, and soon after that clyde barrow went to state prison and they resumed their relationship in texas and their first crime took place in hillboro, texas. people in this area kept up with it just like they did the big gangsters of that era of american history. there was also the age of john dillinger, a lot of people don't realize that all three of those bonnie and clyde, john dillinger pretty boy floyd all were killed by law enforcement in the same year in 1934. so people were really engaged in that story. probably simultaneously horrified but fascinated by these criminals in the great depression. in early 1934, they were

implicated in a prison escape involving a former associate of clyde barrow's in texas, a man named raymond hamilton and shot and killed the prison guard. and so that's when the net law enforcement began to close around them was after the murder of prison guard early in 1934. so it was april of 1934 that clyde barrow was in and around shreveport. as a matter of fact, there was a car stolen in shreveport near shreveport and abandoned it in kansas and his fingerprints proved, of course, he'd been in this area even before he was spotted here. we knew they were in and about the vicinity. just a few days before the ambush took place in louisiana, there was a local cafe here, not

too far from where we're standing called the majestic cafe. and on this street, somewhere between the point we're standing and a couple of blocks from here, clyde was spotted somewhere near the majestic cafe and someone in the neighborhood phoned the local authorities and it was because of that report that law enforcement from the region, including, of course, texas rangers knew that they were in the vicinity. and so that's when the net sort of began to close around bonnie and clyde and their ambush occurred actually just four days after clyde was spotted here on this street. they were ambushed not far from gibson, louisiana, on a rural road. there was actually the ambush laid in place by local law enforcement over in that part of

louisiana who knew on good intelligence where they were going to be, what their movements were and they laid in wait for them on a stretch of road and, of course, as many people know, opened fire on the car that they were riding in and bonnie and clyde both suffered over 50 separate bullet wounds each in that ambush. the story of bonnie and clyde like the story of john dillinger and others like that from this era really is a part of, i think, a broader social commentary about america in the great depression. if you look at crime rates in the united states, there's a definite spike that takes place, particularly in armed robberies in the early 1930s and a lot of social scientists have been quick tobe that to depressed economic conditions, the fact that you have banking failures, business failures, farm closures, and to the point

that you could almost blame the great depression for this era of the american gangster when, in fact, that's probably the reason that people followed their stories and maybe even associated some nostalgia with them perhaps like the outlaws of the old west. it really is a brief period in american history where you see this, the early 1930s. >> find out where c-span's local content vehicles are going next online at c-span.org/localcontent. you're watching american history tv all weekend, every weekend on c-span 3. they would wear garments of homespun cloth, and it would be rough techtured, much