DOCSLIB.ORG

General Cass on the Wilmot Proviso

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General Cass on the Wilmot Proviso General Cass on the Wilmot Proviso. READ AND CIRCULATE.] [PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMITTEE. GENERAL CASS ON THE WILMOT PROVISO. The position of General Cass on the slavery question, as upon all other questions which have come before the country, is consistent, well-defined, and in accordance with the doctrines of the constitution. While General Taylor is quoted at the north as in favor of the “Wilmot Proviso,” and at the south as the champion of the slaveholding interest, General Cass, regarding the question in the light of the constitution, is disposed to leave the institution of slavery where that instrument has left it, in the hands of the people who are affected by it, to regulate it among themselves upon their own responsibility, and in their own manner. The following pages will show the course pursued by General Cass on this question. On the 1st day of March, 1847, the “Wilmot Proviso” was introduced into the Senate by a federal member from New England, as an amendment to the three-million bill. In the course of an eloquent speech, deprecating the introduction of the proviso, end giving his reasons for voting against it, General Cass said: All the apprehensions expressed here will psss away, leaving us and our institutions unscathed. I have an abiding confidence in the rectitude and energy of puplic opinion in this country, as well as of its mighty effects. It has spoken many a time in my day, and spoken in tones that were feared and obeyed; ay, and it will so speak many a time to come. Thank God, we are not the people; we are but their temporary servants. There is a power above us, and beyond us, which says, thus far may you go, but no farther; and there we stop. We introduce subjects here, and discuss them, and discuss them, till mutual contact excites us; and we fancy that everybody is everywhere just as much excited as we are, and that the end of all things, at least all political things—union, government, liberty—is approaching, if not upon us. And all this, while the bounties of Heaven, both physical and moral, are descending upon us, not like the silent dew, but in one unbroken stream of unmerited kindness. Our country is without want; our government without oppression; our people without fear, and without danger; and yet, we are everlastingly talking about a crisis, as though we had nothing to do but to raise one, and to discuss it. We may have one, sir; but it may come in a way and in an hour we know not of. It may be a crisis, not of our making or seeking, but of God's wrath for our ingratitude. As to General Cass on the Wilmot Proviso. http://www.loc.gov/resource/rbaapc.04500 a political crisis, all will come right, Mr. President. That word has got to be quite a common one in our national vocabulary. It frightened me once; but I have seen it so often, that its face has become quite 2 familiar, and does not inspire the least dread. I recognise it as an old acquaintance, changing from time to time its drapery, but still preserving its identity. Our constituents, the American people, will take care of us, and of the crisis, too, as they took care of the crisis of independence, of the confederation, of the revolutionary war, of the constitution, of the non-intercourse, of the embargo, of the bank, of the deposites, of the tariff, and of the late war, and as they are taking into their own mighty keeping the present war; and they will still take care of their Union, and guard it from any unholy touch, as the ark of God was guarded of old by God's holy people. I shall vote against this proviso, because: 1st. The present is no proper time for the introduction into the country, and into Congress, of an exciting topic, tending to divide us, when our united exertions are necessary to prosecute the existing war. 2d. It will be quite in season to provide for the government of territory not yet acquired from foreign countries, after we shall have obtained it. 3d. The proviso can only apply to the British and Mexican territories, as there are no others coterminous to us. Its phraseology would reach either, though its application is pointed to Mexico. It seems to me that to express so much confidence in the successful result of this war, as to legislate at this time, if not over this anticipated acquisition, at least for it, and to lay down a partial basis for its government, would do us no good in the eyes of the world, and would irritate still more the Mexican people. 4th. Legislation now would be wholly inoperative, because no territory hereafter to be acquired can be governed without an act of Congress, providing for its government. And such an act, on its passage, would open the whole subject, and would leave the Congress, called upon to pass it, free to exercise its own discretion, entirely uncontrolled by any declaration found on the statute book. 5th. There is great reason to think that the adoption of this proviso would, in all probability, bring the war to an untimely issue, by the effect it would have on future operations. 6th. Its passage would certainly prevent the acquisition of one foot of territory; thus defeating a measure called for by a vast majority of the American people, and defeating it, too, by the very act purporting to establish a partial basis for its government. General Cass on the Wilmot Proviso. http://www.loc.gov/resource/rbaapc.04500 The progress of public opinion upon the question of the adoption of this proviso, as the circumstances of the country have become more and more difficult, seems to me to indicate very clearly, that since its introduction at the past session of Congress, the conviction has been gaining ground that the present is no time for the agitation of this subject; and as the foreign war becomes more embarrassing, in a greater degree, than many anticipated, it is best to avoid a domestic dispute, which would raise bitter questions at home, and add confidence to the motives for resistance abroad. And certainly the fact now ascertained, that the war would be put to hazard, and the acquisition of territory defeated, by the adoption of this proviso, renders it impossible for me to vote for it, connected, as I deem both of these objects, with the dearest rights and honor of the country. The question on the additional section (the proviso) was then taken by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAS—Messrs. Alien, Atherton, Cameron, Cilley, John M. Clayton, Corwin, Davis, Dayton, Dix, Evans, Fairfield, Greene, Huntington, Miller, Niles, Phelps, Simmons, Sturgeon, Upham, Webster, and Woodbridge—21. NAYS—Messrs. Archer, Ashley, Atchison, Badger, Bagby, Benton, Berrien, Breese, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, CASS, Chalmers, Colquitt, Crittenden, Dickinson, Hannegan, Houston, Jarnagin, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Morehead, Pearce, Rusk, Sevier, Soule, Turney, and Westcott—31. So the amendment was not agreed to. 3 In December, 1847, Gen. Cass, in reply to a communication upon the subject, wrote the following letter to Mr. Nicholson, of Tennessee: Washington, December 24, 1547. Dear Sir: I have received your letter, and shall answer it as frankly as it is written. You ask me whether I am in favor of the acquisition of Mexican territory, and what are my sentiments with regard to the Wilmot Proviso? I have so often and so explicitly stated my views of the first question, in the Senate, that it seems almost unnecessary to repeat them here. As you request it, however, I shall briefly give them. General Cass on the Wilmot Proviso. http://www.loc.gov/resource/rbaapc.04500 I think, then, that no peace should be granted to Mexico, till a reasonable indemnity is obtained for the injuries which she has done us. The territorial extent of this indemnity is, in the first instance, a subject of Executive consideration. There the constitution has placed it, and there I am willing to leave it; not only because I have full confidence in its judicious exercise, but because, in the ever- varying circumstances of a war, it would be indiscreet, by a public declaration, to commit the country to any line of indemnity, which might otherwise be enlarged, as the obstinate injustice of the enemy prolongs the contest with its loss of blood and treasure. It appears to me that the kind of metaphysical magnanimity which would reject all indemnity at the close of a bloody and expensive war, brought on by a direct attack upon our troops by the enemy, and preceded by a succession of unjust acts for a series of years, is as unworthy of the age in which we live, as it is revolting to the common sense and practice of mankind. It would conduce but little to our future security, or indeed to our present reputation, to declare that we repudiate all expectation of compensation from the Mexican government, and are fighting, not for any practical result, but for some vague, perhaps philanthropic object, which escapes my penetration, and must be defined by those who assume this new principle of national intercommunication. All wars are to be deprecated, as well by the statesman as by the philanthropist. They are great evils; but there are greater evils than these, and submission to injustice is among them. The nation which should refuse to defend its rights and its honor when assailed, would soon have neither to defend; and when driven to war, it is not by professions of disinterestedness and declarations of magnanimity, that its rational objects can be best obtained, or other nations taught a lesson of forbearance—the strongest security for permanent peace.
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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • The "Pennsylvania Origins of Popular Sovereignty
    The "Pennsylvania Origins of Popular Sovereignty HE introduction of the Wilmot Proviso in 1846, perhaps more than any other single action, broke the uneasy sectional Ttruce regarding slavery and began the process of party and sectional realignments which culminated in the Civil War. As the proviso's basic principle of free soil became the dominant issue of the campaign of 1848, national politicians were forced to come to grips with this question in a variety of ways.* Popular Sovereignty, the Democratic Party's solution to these issues in 1848, had its origins as an acceptable political concept in Vice President George M. Dallas' Qreat Speech ... Upon the Reading Topics of the T)ay> which he gave in Pittsburgh on September 18, 1847. Although Congressmen Caleb B. Smith of Indiana and Shelton F. Leake of Virginia had made earlier vague references to the people of a territory governing themselves, Dallas was the first major political figure to call for popular sovereignty.1 He had been a prominent figure in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania and the nation since Andrew Jackson's first bid for the presidency. He had served as Mayor of Philadelphia (1828-1829), Federal District Attorney (1829-1831), United States Senator (1831-1833), Attorney General of Pennsylvania (1833-1835), Minister to Russia (1837- 1839), and as Vice President under James K. Polk. Clearly his endorsement of popular sovereignty was an important political sign. It appears to be more than coincidental that the Proviso and two of the three leading solutions to the problem of slavery in the territories—extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean and popular sovereignty—originated within the Keystone State.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of the Civil War Causes of the Civil War
    Causes of the Civil War Causes of the Civil War • Northwest Ordinance • Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 • Kentucky and Virginia • Compromise of 1850 Resolutions • Uncle Tom's Cabin • Missouri Compromise • Kansas–Nebraska Act • Tariff of 1828 • Bleeding Kansas • Nullification Crisis • Mexican American war • Nat Turner's slave rebellion • Sumner-Brooks affair • The Amistad • Dred Scott v. Sandford • Texas Annexation • Brown's raid on Harper's • Mexican–American War Ferry • Wilmot Proviso • 1860 presidential election • Ostend Manifesto • Secession of Southern States • Manifest Destiny • Star of the West • Underground Railroad • Corwin Amendment • Battle of Fort Sumter Attempted Solutions • Missouri Compromise • Wilmot Proviso • Ostend Manifesto • Compromise of 1850 • Kansas-Nebraska Act • popular sovereignty • Bleeding Kansas • Dred Scott Decision The Decision of Slavery Missouri Compromise Missouri Compromise 1820 • Regulation of slavery in the western territories • Prohibited slavery north of 36 ̊-30’ N parallel, except in Missouri • Sectional balance • Maine is a free state Part of the Texas Annexation Resolution of 1845 On the Compromise “… but this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. it is hushed indeed for the moment. but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. a geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every
    [Show full text]