DOCSLIB.ORG

Compromise of 1850 Earlier You Read About the Missouri Compromise and the Wilmot Proviso

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Compromise of 1850 Earlier You Read About the Missouri Compromise and the Wilmot Proviso Compromise of 1850 Earlier you read about the Missouri Compromise and the Wilmot Proviso. Keep them in mind as you read here What is a compromise? A compromise is a resolution of a problem in which each side gives up demands or makes concession. Earlier you read about the Missouri Compromise. What conflict did it resolve? It kept the number of slave and free states equal by admitting Maine as free and Missouri as slave and it provided for a policy with respect to slavery in the Louisiana Territory. Other than in Missouri, the Compromise prohibited slavery north of 36°30' N latitude in the land acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. Look at the 1850 map. Notice how the "Missouri Compromise Line" ends at the border to Mexican Territory. In 1850 the United States controls the 36°30' N latitude to the Pacific Ocean. Will the United States allow slavery in its new territory? Slavery's Expansion Look again at this map and watch for the 36°30' N latitude Missouri Compromise line as well as the proportion of free and slave states up to the Civil War, which begins in 1861. WSBCTC 1 This map was created by User: Kenmayer and is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license (CC-BY 3.0) [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Slave_Free_1789-1861.gif]. Here's a chart that compares the Missouri Compromise with the Compromise of 1850. WSBCTC 2 Wilmot Proviso During the Mexican-American War in 1846, David Wilmot, a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, proposed in an amendment to a military appropriations bill that slavery be banned in all the territories acquired from Mexico. Wilmot's amendment failed, but in the debate over it southerners in both the Whig and Democratic parties argued against it and northerners of both parties argued for it. This sectional (North versus South) rather than party division signaled the end of the Second American Party System. Slavery and Political Parties Slavery began to break down the Second American Party System in 1844 when the Liberty Party emerged to challenge slavery in a national political campaign. The Liberty Party opposed the admission of any slave state to the Union, advocated WSBCTC 3 the end to slavery in Washington, D.C., the abolition of the interstate slave trade, and denying political office to any slaveholders. The Liberty Party attracted 44,000 northern votes in 1844 and thus denied the presidency to the architect of the Missouri Compromise Henry Clay, the Whig Party's candidate. [The election between the Democrat James K. Polk and the Whig Henry Clay was very close as less than 40,000 votes separated the two.] The Liberty Party's stance on slavery was too extreme for most northerners and so another party appeared, the Free Soil Party. Free Soilers did not approve of slavery but were willing to allow it to continue where it already existed unlike the Liberty Party abolitionists. What they adamantly opposed was slavery's extension into new and unorganized territories (like those just acquired from Mexico). They opposed the Missouri Compromise because extension of its 36°30' line would have allowed slavery in much of present-day Arizona, New Mexico, and the southern half of California. By 1854 this "free soil" philosophy was embraced by another third party, the Republican Party.The election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, in 1860 would lead directly to the secession of southern states and the start of the Civil War. Chart comparing political parties when questions about the expansion of slavery came to dominate the national political scene from the mid-1840s until Lincoln's election in 1860.. WSBCTC 4 Popular Sovereignty What is sovereignty? It means independence. A sovereign state is a self-governing one. What is popular sovereignty? In 1848 the Democratic nominee for president Lewis Cass proposed it as a way to resolve the slavery question. Under popular sovereignty, the citizens of a territory would vote on whether to allow slavery. Cass never made clear when those citizens would vote: would they vote as a territory or when they applied for statehood? In the 1848 election, the Free Soil Party opposed popular sovereignty while Cass the Democrat and war hero Zachary Taylor the Whig avoided making a clear statement about slavery in the newly acquired Mexican Cession. The Free Soil Party attracted 10 percent of the vote, another strong showing for a party based on limiting slavery. Taylor won the election but died in office. WSBCTC 5 Compromise of 1850 The candidates may have avoided the issue of slavery in the new territories in 1848, but by 1850 the nation had to face it. The California Gold Rush resulted in thousands racing there to make their fortunes. California's population exploded and the territory applied for statehood. Utah, home to thousands of Mormon pioneers, also applied for statehood. Would they enter the Union as slave or free? The Compromise of 1850 resolved the issue of California's status: it entered the Union as a free state. The Mormon practice of polygamy delayed Utah's statehood until the 1890s after the Church ended the practice. The Compromise addressed California's status and that of the other territories as well as other issues concerning slavery in a series of bills. Here's a summary. 1. California admitted as free state. 2. Slavery in the rest of Mexican Cession not specified. The Compromise bill said only that New Mexico and Utah would have no "restriction or condition on the subject of slavery." 3. Texas's boundaries resolved. 4. Slave trade in the District of Columbia was abolished. [Remember that the Liberty Party wanted slavery itself abolished in the District.] 5. Stronger fugitive slave law enacted. [Remember that the Constitution in Art. IV, Sec. 2, Para. 3 required the return of runaway slaves.] Effects of the Compromise People rejoiced in the streets of Washington, D.C., when the Compromise passed. What had the Compromise achieved? Did WSBCTC 6 the Compromise resolve the slavery question in the rest of the Mexican Cession (e.g., in New Mexico)? The Compromise said nothing about slavery in New Mexico and Utah. To northerners, the Compromise meant that a territorial legislature could exclude slavery. Southerners assumed that slavery could not be excluded at least until statehood. Though some history texts assert that popular sovereignty would decide slave or free when the territories applied for statehood, in reality the meaning of the Compromise was left to the courts. If the territorial legislatures had passed an antislavery measure then the courts would have had to determine its constitutionality. You read about the Dred Scott Supreme Court case that ruled that territories had no authority to issue such measures. What was the Compromise of 1850's most significant effect? It delayed the Civil War for 10 years. In those 10 years, the North grew in strength as immigration increased its population and industrialization increased its wealth and production capacity. Chart showing legislation and decisions about slavery. The chart's title repeats the words of New York Senator William Seward who in 1858 warned that the sectional conflict over slavery represented an "irrepressible conflict." WSBCTC 7 ©Susan Vetter 2011 WSBCTC 8 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Missouri Compromise (1820) • Compromise Sponsored by Henry Clay
    Congressional Compromises and the Road to War The Great Triumvirate Henry Clay Daniel Webster John C. Calhoun representing the representing representing West the North the South John C. Calhoun •From South Carolina •Called “Cast-Iron Man” for his stubbornness and determination. •Owned slaves •Believed states were sovereign and could nullify or reject federal laws they believed were unconstitutional. Daniel Webster •From Massachusetts •Called “The Great Orator” •Did not own slaves Henry Clay •From Kentucky •Called “The Great Compromiser” •Owned slaves •Calmed sectional conflict through balanced legislation and compromises. Missouri Compromise (1820) • Compromise sponsored by Henry Clay. It allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a Slave State and Maine to enter as a Free State. The southern border of Missouri would determine if a territory could allow slavery or not. • Slavery was allowed in some new states while other states allowed freedom for African Americans. • Balanced political power between slave states and free states. Nullification Crisis (1832-1833) • South Carolina, led by Senator John C. Calhoun declared a high federal tariff to be null and avoid within its borders. • John C. Calhoun and others believed in Nullification, the idea that state governments have the right to reject federal laws they see as Unconstitutional. • The state of South Carolina threatened to secede or break off from the United States if the federal government, under President Andrew Jackson, tried to enforce the tariff in South Carolina. Andrew Jackson on Nullification “The laws of the United States, its Constitution…are the supreme law of the land.” “Look, for a moment, to the consequence.
    [Show full text]
  • No Open Book!
    Test on Tuesday 12/10 Study, study, study What did Nat Turner do? • Leader of a Slave Rebellion in VA • Caused changes in treatment of slaves in some states What was the result (or significance) of Nat Turner’s rebellion • Placing stricter slave “codes” or laws on slaves To balance the slave and free states and create a rule of entrance for new states of the Louisiana Territory. (1820) • The Missouri Compromise What two states entered in the agreement from #3 (and which way? Free/slave) • Missouri- Slave • Maine- Free (kept the balance to 12 each) What was it called when the Tariffs were opposed by the South and they wrote about how it was unconstitutional? • Nullification Crisis What is the name of the paper that stated that the federal government was unconstitutional in their actions of this “Tariff of abominations”? • Doctrine of Nullification How was South Carolina involved in the Nullification Crisis? • It was the state had issue with the actions of the Government in the Nullification Crisis (Calhoun was from here) What did John C. Calhoun have to do with the Nullification Crisis? • He wrote the Doctrine of Nullification What is Loyalty to the interests of one's own region or section of the country, rather than to the country as a whole? • Sectionalism In what ways were the North and South different in the period of 1800-1860? • North had: No slavery, industry, urbanization, and small farms. • South had; plantation slavery, agricultural base, and poor subsistence farmers. Webster Ashburton was a treaty that settled the dispute of what territory? • The shared Oregon territory between Britain and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Causes of the Civil War
    THE CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR: A NEWSPAPER ANALYSIS by DIANNE M. BRAGG WM. DAVID SLOAN, COMMITTEE CHAIR GEORGE RABLE MEG LAMME KARLA K. GOWER CHRIS ROBERTS A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Communication and Information Sciences in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2013 Copyright Dianne Marie Bragg 2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT This dissertation examines antebellum newspaper content in an attempt to add to the historical understanding of the causes of the Civil War. Numerous historians have studied the Civil War and its causes, but this study will use only newspapers to examine what they can show about the causes that eventually led the country to war. Newspapers have long chronicled events in American history, and they offer valuable information about the issues and concerns of their communities. This study begins with an overview of the newspaper coverage of the tariff and territorial issues that began to divide the country in the early decades of the 1800s. The study then moves from the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 to Lincoln’s election in 1860, a period in which sectionalism and disunion increasingly appeared on newspaper pages and the lines of disagreement between the North and the South hardened. The primary sources used in this study were a diverse sampling of articles from newspapers around the country and includes representation from both southern and northern newspapers. Studying these antebellum newspapers offers insight into the political, social, and economic concerns of the day, which can give an indication of how the sectional differences in these areas became so divisive.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilmot Proviso
    Wilmot Proviso The Wilmot Proviso was introduced on August 8, 1846, in the United States House of Representatives as a rider on a $2 million appropriations bill intended for the final negotiations to resolve the Mexican-American War. The intent of the proviso, submitted by Democratic Congressman David Wilmot, was to prevent the introduction of slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico. The proviso did not pass in this session or in any other session when it was reintroduced over the course of the next several years, but many consider it as the one of first events on the long slide to secession and Civil War which would accelerate through the 1850s. Background Pennsylvania politician David Wilmot After an earlier attempt to acquire Texas by treaty had failed (lithograph by M.H. Traubel). Source: Library to receive the necessary two-thirds approval of the Senate, of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division the United States annexed the Republic of Texas by a joint (Digital ID cph.3c32936). resolution that required simply a majority vote in each house of Congress. President John Tyler signed the bill on March 1, 1845 in the waning days of his presidency. As many expected, the annexation led to war with Mexico. When the war began to wind down, the political focus shifted to what territory, would be acquired from Mexico. Key to this was the determination of the future status of slavery in any new territory. Both major political parties of the time had labored long to keep divisive slavery issues out of national politics. However, the victory of James Polk (Democratic Party) over Henry Clay (Southern Whig) in the 1844 presidential election had caught the Whigs by surprise.
    [Show full text]
  • Congress Debates the Fate of the Nation: Analyzing the Wilmot Proviso & President Polk's 1848
    Congress Debates the Fate of the Nation: Analyzing The Wilmot Proviso & President Polk’s 1848 Map Worksheet 2: Answer Key (Individual answers might vary) 1. What did the Wilmot Proviso say about slavery in the newly acquired Western territories? There could be no slavery or involuntary servitude in any territory gained by treaty from Mexico. 2. List three ways in which the Wilmot Proviso would have spurred unity and three ways it would have spurred division in America. Ways of Spurring Union Ways of Spurring Division Ended dispute over the Western Driven a “wedge” between territory acquired from Mexico Northern and Southern members of the Whig and Democratic Parties Removed the issue of the extension of Elevated slavery to a national slavery from politics political issue Preserved the parties as national Strengthened the Free Soil party in institutions the North 3. Write a hypothesis about whether the Wilmot Proviso would have primarily united or divided the nation and why. By elevating slavery to a national issue, and drawing a line between Northern and Southern members of both political parties, the Wilmot Proviso primarily divided the nation. Center for Legislative Archives National Archives and Records Administration www.archives.gov/legislative Congress Debates the Fate of the Nation: Analyzing The Wilmot Proviso & President Polk’s 1848 Map Worksheet 3: Answer Key Directions: Outline and label the following areas on this map: a. the Free States in 1848, b. the Slave States in 1848, c. the Northwest Territory, d. Indian Territory, e. the 36°30’ line of latitude, f. the Oregon Territory, g.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of 1824 – 1850 Era Jacksonian Democracy (1828-1836
    Summary of 1824 – 1850 Era Jacksonian Democracy (1828-1836) 1824 – the “corrupt bargain” election (JQ Adams & Clay “rob” Jackson ???) Jackson represents the “common man”. Jackson increases the suffrage, so the “common man” can vote = Jacksonian Democracy. De Tocqueville, “Democracy in America”. Jackson uses the veto and establishes Presidential authority over Congress. Jackson also thumbs his nose at the Judiciary – he defies the Supreme Court by Indian Removal Act, 1830 (Cherokees – Worcester .v. Georgia), Trail of Tears results. Jackson fights a running battle with Henry Clay and his American System. Whigs (Clay & Webster) .v. Democrats (Jackson & Van Buren) – 2 party system becomes established. Jackson stands for “small govt”, but NOT for nullification (remember, Jackson is President, and nullification or secession reduces the power of the feds. John C. Calhoun is big in this period, as South-North disputes blow up over slavery, tariffs, BUS, federally funded internal improvements. Remember the Tariff of Abominations (1828 – is slavery the real issue ?), Calhoun’s “concurrent majority” idea, SC nullifies the tariff, Jackson responds with the Force Bill (1833), SC backs down. Civil War is averted, for a while, but would it have been better to have sorted the issue out in 1833 ? Webster – Hayne Debate, 1830 (Senate, Webster makes stirring speech about the union being “one and inseperable” – again, it’s the nullification / secession issue). Jackson fights Nicholas Biddle to destroy the BUS. Jackson declares the US “neutral”, but assists Texas break free from Mexico (1836) Slavery Issue Getting very big. Colonization to Liberia, 1817 Missouri Compromise (yes, 1820, earlier, but still …) Abolitionists getting hot under the collar (Wm Lloyd Garrison, 1831, The Liberator) States rights = right to have slaves Therefore the whole nullification / secession thing is really about slavery.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wilmot Proviso the Wilmot Proviso Was a Rider (Or Provision) Attached to an Appropriations Bill During the Mexican War
    The Wilmot Proviso The Wilmot Proviso was a rider (or provision) attached to an appropriations bill during the Mexican War. It stated that slavery would be banned in any territory won from Mexico as a result of the war. While it was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives (where northern states had an advantage due to population), it failed to be considered by the U.S. Senate (where slave and free states were evenly divided). Though never enacted, the Wilmot Proviso signaled significant challenges regarding what to do with the extension of slavery into the territories. The controversy over slavery’s extension polarized public opinion and resulted in dramatically increased sectional tension during the 1850s. The Wilmot Proviso was introduced by David Wilmot from Pennsylvania and mirrored the wording of the Northwest Ordinance on slavery. The proviso stated “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory” that might be gained from Mexico as a result of the Mexican-American War. The issue of the extension of slavery was not new. As northern states abolished the institution of slavery, they pushed to keep the practice from extending into new territory. The push for abolition began before the ratification of the Constitution with the enactment of the Northwest Ordinance which outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 brought a large amount of new land into the U.S. that, over time, would qualify for territorial status and eventually statehood. The proviso stated “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory” that might be gained from Mexico as a result of the Mexican-American War.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Did Florida Secede from the Union? Alexander J
    )ORULGD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\/LEUDULHV 2019 Why Did Florida Secede from the Union? Alexander J. Bowen Follow this and additional works at DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES WHY DID FLORIDA SECEDE FROM THE UNION? By ALEXANDER J. BOWEN A Thesis submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major Degree Awarded: Spring, 2019 Introduction On January 11th, 1861, Governor Madison S. Perry met with the state’s secession commissioners on the east portico of the state capitol building to witness and confer Florida’s official Ordinance of Secession that had been passed the previous day in the Convention of the People of Florida. This public ceremony officially began the process of separating Florida from the federal union of the United States and established the state as an independent republic. In the coming weeks, what was the secession convention would transform into the Constitutional Convention of 1861 to establish a reformed government in Florida similar to the U.S. Constitution. The following month, delegates would be sent to the Montgomery Congress to commit Florida to a union between the Southern slaveholding states and draft a constitution for the Confederate States of America. Through the course of these events, the delegates of the state convention married Florida to the rest of the South and to a bloody war with a massive loss of life, defeat at the hands of the very government they sought to separate from, and a Reconstruction government protecting the rights of newly emancipated slaves.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of the Civil
    Social Studies Name: _________________________ Directions: Complete the following questions using the website listed below. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/triggerevents.html 1. According to the website, what was the Civil War a culmination of? 2. Briefly explain the Missouri Compromise and how it led to the Civil War. 3. Who was Nat Turner? 4. Explain Nat Turner’s Rebellion. 5. How do you think Nat Turner’s Rebellion led to the Civil War? © Copyright History Matters 2015. 6. What was the Wilmot Proviso? Explain. 7. What was the result of the Wilmot Proviso and how did it lead to the Civil War? 8. According to the website, what senators were involved in the creation of the Compromise of 1850? 9. Explain the Compromise of 1850. 10. How did the Compromise of 1850 lead to the Civil War? 11. Who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin? 12. What was Uncle Tom’s Cabin about? 13. How did Uncle Tom’s Cabin lead to the Civil War? 14. Explain the Kansas-Nebraska Act. What did it do? 15. When was the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed? 16. What was Bleeding Kansas? Explain. © Copyright History Matters 2015. 17. Who was Dred Scott and what did he do? 18. What was the outcome of the Dred Scott Decision? 19. Who was John Brown? 20. Explain John Brown’s Raid. 21. What happened to John Brown? 22. When was Abraham Lincoln elected? 23. What party did Abraham Lincoln run as? 24. What occurred on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter? 25. What is the significance of the Battle of Fort Sumter? © Copyright History Matters 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Kansas! Read Kansas!
    YOUR KANSAS STORIES HISTORICAL OUR M-10 HISTORY SOCIETY Read Kansas! By the Kansas Historical Society The Fight Over Slavery in the United States: A Series of Compromises In 1820 tensions over slavery in the United States were growing. To maintain the balance of power in the U.S. Congress, a series of compromise were reached. The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 both had effects on Kansas becoming a state. Missouri Oregon Territory Country Michigan Territory Free States Slave States Florida (slave) Mexico Territory Arkansas (slave) Territory The United States Constitution did not address the issue of slavery in 1787. Slavery was considered a “domestic issue” and was left up to each state to decide. In 1820 there were 22 states in the United States of America. Eleven southern states allowed slavery. Eleven northern states outlawed it. As new states wanted to join the Union, neither the North nor the South wanted to upset the balance of power. This meant the U.S. Congress had to make a series of compromises. The Missouri Compromise Under the Missouri Compromise of 1820 two new states entered the Union. • Maine became a free state, prohibiting slavery. • Missouri entered as a slave state. This maintained the balance of power in the U.S. Congress. The Missouri Compromise did something else that made it important. • For the first time the federalgovernment, rather than the states, decided on the issue of slavery. • The compromise banned slavery in the northern portion of the Louisianam Territory. This included the land that was to become Kansas. The Compromise of 1850 The Compromise of 1850 was a series of bills that passed the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850: the Tipping Point
    The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850: The Tipping Point During the Antebellum period, tensions between the Northern and Southern regions of the United States escalated due to debates over slavery and states’ rights. These disagreements between the North and South set the stage for the Civil War in 1861. Following the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, the United States acquired 500,000 square miles of land from Mexico and the question of whether slavery would be allowed in the territory was debated between the North and South. As a solution, Congress ultimately passed the The Compromise of 1850. The Compromise resulted in California joining the Union as a free state and slavery in the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Utah, to be determined by popular sovereignty. In order to placate the Southern States, the Fugitive Slave Act was put into place to appease the Southerners and to prevent secession. This legislation allowed the federal government to deputize Northerners to capture and return escaped slaves to their owners in the South. Although the Fugitive Slave Act was well intentioned, the plan ultimately backfired. The Fugitive Slave Act fueled the Abolitionist Movement in the North and this angered the South. The enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act increased the polarization of the North and South and served as a catalyst to events which led to the outbreak of the Civil War. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 brought into sharp focus old differences between the North and South and empowered the Anti-Slavery movement. Prior to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Act of 1793 was passed and this allowed for slave owners to enter free states to capture escaped slaves.
    [Show full text]
  • Slavery and the Civil War
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Slavery and the Civil War www.nps.gov The role of slavery in bringing on the Civil War has been hotly debated for decades. One important way of approaching the issue is to look at what contemporary observers had to say. In March 1861, Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederate States of America, gave his view: The new [Confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution . The prevailing ideas entertained by . most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically . Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error . Alexander H. Stephens, vice Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its president of the Confederate corner–stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that States of America. slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. — Alexander H. Stephens, March 21, 1861, reported in the Savannah Republican, emphasis in the original. Today, most professional historians agree with Stephens that could not be ignored.
    [Show full text]