DOCSLIB.ORG

The Antiwar Motivation of the Wilmot Proviso

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Antiwar Motivation of the Wilmot Proviso City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Dissertations and Theses City College of New York 2016 THE ANTIWAR MOTIVATION OF THE WILMOT PROVISO Michael McCarthy CUNY City College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cc_etds_theses/577 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] THE ANTIWAR MOTIVATION OF THE WILMOT PROVISO Michael McCarthy Adviser: Adrienne Petty May 9, 2016 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts of the City College of the City University of New York CONTENTS Introduction 1 Section I. The Slave Power Thesis and Doughface Democrats 10 Section II. The Rise of Antislavery and the Birth of the Liberty Party 15 Section III. The Battle over Texas and the Election of 1844 20 Section IV. The Mexican War and the Antiwar Movement 30 Section V. The Example of New Hampshire 45 Section VI. The Reintroduction of the Proviso and the Debate in the House 49 Conclusion 53 Bibliography 55 i Introduction On the evening of Saturday, August 8, 1846, a sweltering night in which “newspaper fans and ice water were in great demand,” a first-term Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania took to the House floor to address his colleagues.1 Earlier that day, President James K. Polk had sent a message to Congress requesting two million dollars to be used to negotiate a peace settlement with Mexico, with whom the U.S. had been at war for several months. Since its inception, Polk had assured Congress and the nation that the war was strictly defensive and had denied that it was being waged in the interest of territorial expansion. The appropriation request, however, now made it clear that the administration desired to make the acquisition of Mexican land part of any potential peace agreement.2 The timing of the request was an opportunistic move on Polk’s part. By waiting until the last weekend of the congressional session, which was set to adjourn at noon on Monday, August 10, he had likely hoped to bypass any serious debate that might forestall his acquisition scheme. Things, however, did not go according to plan. After a two million dollar appropriation bill was drawn up, the debate in the House began. Several members addressed the proposed bill – including Hugh White, a Whig from New York who denounced the war as “unnecessary, uncalled for, and wholly unjustifiable” before calling on the “the other side of the House” to offer, as an act of good faith, an amendment prohibiting the extension of slavery – before David Wilmot was recognized by the Speaker.3 Wilmot began by reaffirming his support for the war as 1 New York Herald, August 11, 1846. 2 According to Eric Foner, “Polk recognized that a peace treaty ceding land to the United States would be unpopular in Mexico. He intended to use the two million dollars as payment to the Mexican government. This would enable it to retain the support of the Mexican army and, therefore, to stay in power. Foner, “The Wilmot Proviso Revisited,” The Journal of American History, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Sept., 1969): 273. 3 Congressional Globe, 29th Congress, 1st Session, 1213-1214. 1 necessary and proper and by denying that it was a war of conquest. He admitted, however, that it was now apparent that the President sought to acquire territory from Mexico, which Wilmot would not oppose as long as it was fairly attained by purchase or negotiation, and not by conquest. “But whatever territory might be acquired, he declared himself opposed, now and forever, to the extension of this ‘peculiar institution’ that belongs to the South.”4 Wilmot concluded by offering the following amendment, modelled on Jefferson’s Northwest Ordinance, which afterwards became known as the “Wilmot Proviso”: Provided, That as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery not involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for a crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted.5 The amended bill passed the House along strictly sectional lines, although it was subsequently killed in the Senate.6 While it drew little attention at the time, and though it never did manage to pass the Senate, the Wilmot Proviso had a tremendous impact on the course of American history. The controversy that followed its introduction unleashed a sectional struggle that ultimately lead to a civil war which nearly tore the Union apart. While historians have universally recognized the significance of the Proviso, they have focused almost exclusively on the political motivations behind its introduction and the political ramifications that followed, rather than on the essential role played by the American people in bringing it about. Although the handful of Van Buren Democrats 4 Ibid., 1214. 5 Ibid., 1217. 6 The bill was talked to death (inadvertently, he later claimed) by Whig John Davis of Massachusetts. 2 behind the Proviso were certainly motivated by political considerations, without popular pressure from large segments of the electorate, they would not have had the need to respond in the first place.7 For the truth is, in various sections of the Northeast and Midwest, the Mexican War was widely and vehemently opposed from the start, primarily because of its alleged association with the extension of slavery. For their part in supporting this decidedly unpopular war, the Proviso men faced the serious prospect of defeat in the upcoming elections of 1846. As members of the dominant party, these Democrats were bound to support the war, yet some gesture was required to assure their antiwar constituents that the war was not being waged to spread slavery; the Proviso was intended to do just that. The introduction of the Proviso, therefore, was in no small part the result of popular outrage and activism on the part of antislavery opponents of the war. By characterizing the Proviso as the product of self-serving politicians exclusively, historians have overlooked the agency and influence of thousands of antiwar activists who collectively forced these men to act. Although there may be general consensus among historians regarding its impact, there remains some controversy surrounding the origins of, and motivations behind, the Wilmot Proviso. In fact, historians even disagree about the original authorship of the amendment. For many years, historians accepted the version told by Congressman Jacob Brinkerhoff of Ohio, who insisted that he was the true author of the famous amendment. However, because of his own reputation as an antislavery man, Brinkerhoff claimed that he approached Wilmot, who had until then been a loyal supporter of the administration and had shown no sign of antislavery sympathies, to introduce the measure instead. Although Brinkerhoff had acted independently, after conferring with some Democratic 7 Van Buren Democrats, or Van Burenites, were northern followers of former President Martin Van Buren. 3 colleagues he discovered that several others had written amendments similar in character to his own.8 As Brinkerhoff later admitted, “I am entitled to no very great and no exclusive credit. My draft of the Proviso happened to be adopted as the best, and that is all.”9 Wilmot, on the other hand, claimed that he alone had conceived of the idea during the dinner recess, but admitted to afterwards consulting with several fellow Democrats who also favored such an amendment. Therefore, when the appropriation bill was introduced in the evening session, “several gentlemen collected together to agree upon the form and terms of the proposed [free-soil] amendment. After various drafts had been drawn and altered, the language in which the amendment was offered was finally agreed on.”10 Charles Buxton Going accepted this version of events in his 1924 biography of Wilmot, and even managed to track down the “original” Proviso submitted to the Speaker on August, 8, 1846 in Wilmot’s handwriting.11 Following this revelation, most historians have accepted Going’s conclusion that Wilmot, not Brinkerhoff, was the Proviso’s true author.12 8 Charles Eugene Hamlin, The Life and Times of Hannibal Hamlin (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1899), 155-57. In the Brinkerhoff account, this group included Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, John P. Hale of New Hampshire, Preston King, George Rathbun, Martin Grover, and Timothy Jenkins of New York, and Paul Dillingham of Vermont. Although, according to Foner, “Hale’s inclusion seems to be an error. He was not a member of the 29th Congress. Brinkerhoff was probably thinking of Hale’s role in the 28th Congress, when he opposed the annexation of Texas.” Foner, “Wilmot Proviso,” 262. 9 Quoted in Charles Buxton Going, David Wilmot, Free-Soiler: A Biography of the Great Advocate of the Wilmot Proviso. (Gloucester, Mass: P. Smith, 1966), 139. 10 Wilmot’s account comes from a speech he delivered in Albany, NY on October 29, 1847; published in The voice of New York! Proceedings of the Herkimer mass convention of Oct. 26, 1847, with the Speeches of the Hon. David Wilmot of Pa.; C.C. Cambreleng, John Van Buren, and others (Albany: Albany Atlas, 1847), 12. The members of the group mentioned by Wilmot included five of the same men listed by Brinkerhoff (Rathbun, King, Grover, Hamlin, and Brinkerhoff), as well as James Thompson of Pennsylvania. 11 Going, David Wilmot, 122-23.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Dispute Over the Annexation of Texas and Opposition to the Mexican War Prior to Texas's Independence, the Nueces River Was R
    American Studies Mr. Carlson The Dispute over the Annexation of Texas and opposition to the Mexican War Prior to Texas's independence, the Nueces River was recognized as the northern boundary of Mexico. Spain had fixed the Nueces as a border in 1816, and the United States ratified it in the 1819 treaty by which the United States had purchased Florida and renounced claims to Texas. Even following Mexico's independence from Spain, American and European cartographers fixed the Texas border at the Nueces. When Texas declared its independence, however, it claimed as its territory an additional 150 miles of land, to the Rio Grande. With the annexation of Texas in 1845, the United States adopted Texas's position and claimed the Rio Grande as the border. Mexico broke diplomatic relations with the United States and refused to recognize either the Texas annexation or the Rio Grande border. President James Polk sent a special envoy, John L. Slidell, to propose cancellation of Mexico's debt to United States citizens who had incurred damages during the Mexican Revolution, provided Mexico would formally recognize the Rio Grande boundary. Slidell was also authorized to offer the Mexican government up to $30 million for California and New Mexico. Between Slidell's arrival on December 6, 1845, and his departure in March 1846, the regime of President Jose Herrara was overthrown and a fervently nationalistic government under General Mariano Paredes seized power. Neither leader would speak to Slidell. When Paredes publicly reaffirmed Mexico's claim to all of Texas, Slidell left in a temper, convinced that Mexico should be "chastised." American Studies Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • John Quincy Adams, the Gag Rule, and Antislavery An
    JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, THE GAG RULE, AND ANTISLAVERY AN HONORS THESIS SUBMITTED TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS of I.D. 499 by RICHARD A. GANTZ ADVISER - WILLIAM EIDSON BALL STATE UNIVERSITY MUNCIE, INDIANA AUGUST t 1968 ·~ __ I t 196L~ . G,:: {f! TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION •••..•••••.•••.•••..•••. page 1 CI1A.PTER 1 .•••••••••••••••••••••••••• page 2 CI1A.PTER 2 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••. page 12 CONCLUSIONS .•••••.••..••.••••••••••• page 31 BIBLIOGRAPHY ••••. ••••••••.••• ••••••• page 33 INTRODUCTION In the United states in the 1830's, the foremost issue that threatened the future of the Union was slavery. The abolition and antislavery societies became much more aggressive in their campaign to attack slavery. Under this new pressure, the South grew extremely sensitive and defensive of its peculiar institution. In an attempt to still the disruptive debate over slavery, the House of Representatives in 1836 adopted a "gag" rule to stop the flood of petitions calling for abolition. This was passed by the Southerners with the support of the majority of representatives from the North. The leader of the opposition to the gag rule was the venerable ex-President, John Quincy Adams, who was rendering his last years of public service in the House of Representatives. Adams, in his attempt to rescind the gag rule became, willingly or not, the unofficial leader of the antislavery movement. The struggle against the gag rule was closely connected to but was not quite the same as the antislavery movement. In view of this fact and John Quincy Adams's role in both movements, a question arises as to how much his involvement in the antislavery movement was prompted by his work against the gag rule.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • H. Doc. 108-222
    THIRTIETH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1847, TO MARCH 3, 1849 FIRST SESSION—December 6, 1847, to August 14, 1848 SECOND SESSION—December 4, 1848, to March 3, 1849 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—GEORGE M. DALLAS, of Pennsylvania PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—DAVID R. ATCHISON, 1 of Missouri SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—ASBURY DICKINS, 2 of North Carolina SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE SENATE—ROBERT BEALE, of Virginia SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—ROBERT C. WINTHROP, 3 of Massachusetts CLERK OF THE HOUSE—BENJAMIN B. FRENCH, of New Hampshire; THOMAS J. CAMPBELL, 4 of Tennessee SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—NEWTON LANE, of Kentucky; NATHAN SARGENT, 5 of Vermont DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—ROBERT E. HORNER, of New Jersey ALABAMA CONNECTICUT GEORGIA SENATORS SENATORS SENATORS 14 Arthur P. Bagby, 6 Tuscaloosa Jabez W. Huntington, Norwich Walter T. Colquitt, 18 Columbus Roger S. Baldwin, 15 New Haven 19 William R. King, 7 Selma Herschel V. Johnson, Milledgeville John M. Niles, Hartford Dixon H. Lewis, 8 Lowndesboro John Macpherson Berrien, 20 Savannah REPRESENTATIVES Benjamin Fitzgerald, 9 Wetumpka REPRESENTATIVES James Dixon, Hartford Thomas Butler King, Frederica REPRESENTATIVES Samuel D. Hubbard, Middletown John Gayle, Mobile John A. Rockwell, Norwich Alfred Iverson, Columbus Henry W. Hilliard, Montgomery Truman Smith, Litchfield John W. Jones, Griffin Sampson W. Harris, Wetumpka Hugh A. Haralson, Lagrange Samuel W. Inge, Livingston DELAWARE John H. Lumpkin, Rome George S. Houston, Athens SENATORS Howell Cobb, Athens Williamson R. W. Cobb, Bellefonte John M. Clayton, 16 New Castle Alexander H. Stephens, Crawfordville Franklin W. Bowdon, Talladega John Wales, 17 Wilmington Robert Toombs, Washington Presley Spruance, Smyrna ILLINOIS ARKANSAS REPRESENTATIVE AT LARGE John W.
    [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 Democratic Party and the Transformation of American Conservatism, 1847-1860
    PRESERVING THE WHITE MAN’S REPUBLIC: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN CONSERVATISM, 1847-1860 Joshua A. Lynn A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2015 Approved by: Harry L. Watson William L. Barney Laura F. Edwards Joseph T. Glatthaar Michael Lienesch © 2015 Joshua A. Lynn ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Joshua A. Lynn: Preserving the White Man’s Republic: The Democratic Party and the Transformation of American Conservatism, 1847-1860 (Under the direction of Harry L. Watson) In the late 1840s and 1850s, the American Democratic party redefined itself as “conservative.” Yet Democrats’ preexisting dedication to majoritarian democracy, liberal individualism, and white supremacy had not changed. Democrats believed that “fanatical” reformers, who opposed slavery and advanced the rights of African Americans and women, imperiled the white man’s republic they had crafted in the early 1800s. There were no more abstract notions of freedom to boundlessly unfold; there was only the existing liberty of white men to conserve. Democrats therefore recast democracy, previously a progressive means to expand rights, as a way for local majorities to police racial and gender boundaries. In the process, they reinvigorated American conservatism by placing it on a foundation of majoritarian democracy. Empowering white men to democratically govern all other Americans, Democrats contended, would preserve their prerogatives. With the policy of “popular sovereignty,” for instance, Democrats left slavery’s expansion to territorial settlers’ democratic decision-making.
    [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]
  • Lesson Ideas for a Destined Conflict
    Lesson Ideas for A Destined Conflict Excerpts from Curriculum Guide For Teaching Texas History Written by Yvonne Pittman, Educational Consultant Assisted by M. Elizabeth Appleby, Curator and Lisa A. Struthers, Library Director San Jacinto Museum of History This work was made possible through funding from: Fondren Foundation LyondellBasell Meadows Foundation Houston Endowment Inc. The Gordon A. Cain Foundation Elkins Foundation Union Pacific Foundation BNSF Railway Foundation San Jacinto Day Foundation The Dow Chemical Company H-E-B Tournament of Champions Written by Yvonne Pittman, Educational Consultant Assisted by M. Elizabeth Appleby, Curator and Lisa A. Struthers, Library Director San Jacinto Museum of History Copyright 2015 San Jacinto Museum of History Published by the San Jacinto Museum of History One Monument Circle La Porte, Texas 77571-9585 281-479-2421 www.sanjacinto-museum.org [email protected] August 17, 2015 Contents Lesson Plans Lesson Plan: Texas Annexation 1 Lesson Plan: Mexican War and Early Statehood 14 Strategy Descriptions and Graphic Organizers SDA Document Analysis 20 Walk-About Review 22 Historical Markers Activity 23 Propaganda Exercise 24 Introduction The goal of this guide is to enhance your students’ visit to the exhibit A Destined Conflict: The U.S. - Mexican War. The lessons were excerpted from Curriculum Guide for Teaching Texas History, which is available for download at http://www.sanjacinto- museum.org/Education/For_Teachers/. Lesson documents are in PDF format for ease of downloading, but Word versions are available to teachers on request to insure modifications are simple for classroom use. Related images are at https://sanjacinto- museum.smugmug.com/CurriculumGuide in the 4B Texas Annexation and 4C-Statehood sections.
    [Show full text]
  • A. K. Mcclure and the PEOPLE's PARTY in the CAMPAIGN of 1860
    A. K. McCLURE AND THE PEOPLE'S PARTY IN THE CAMPAIGN OF 1860 By WILLIAM H. RUSSELL* pOLITICAL campaigns usually are considered important mainly for the election results that follow. Yet the campaign itself can have lasting effects, both in the discussion of issues and in the relations developed among politicians under stress. This was notably true of the campaign of 1860 in Pennsylvania. This cam- paign was to have strong effects on the future of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania, and on the state's attitude toward the issues leading to the Civil War. It affected the career of nearly every prominent Republican politician, but none more than that of young Alexander K. McClure, state chairman of the party during this critical time. A. K. McClure. by 1860, was already well known as one of the state's shrewdest and most ambitious young politicians. At the age of eighteen he had founded his own newspaper at Mifflintown, and become a spokesman for the anti-slavery Whigs. Six years later he took over the Whig newspaper at Chambersburg, where he achieved financial success and leadership in community affairs. By 1857 he had become a lawyer and won election to the legislature. There he would be a leader of the anti-Democratic forces for several years. With the decline of the Whig Party, he had dallied briefly with the new Know-Nothing movement, then joined in the effort to unite Whigs, Know Nothings, and anti-Nebraska Demo- crats under the Republican label. In 1860, still just thirty-two years of age, he was called to be state chairman of his party.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Mangiaracina James Crisisinfluence.Pdf
    THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY THE INFLUENCE OF THE 1830s NULLIFICATION CRISIS ON THE 1860s SECESSION CRISIS JAMES MANGIARACINA SPRING 2017 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a baccalaureate degree in History with honors in History Reviewed and approved* by the following: Amy Greenberg Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of History and Women’s Studies Thesis Supervisor Mike Milligan Senior Lecturer in History Honors Adviser * Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College. i ABSTRACT This thesis aims to connect the constitutional arguments for and against secession during the Nullification Crisis of 1832 with the constitutional arguments for and against secession during the Secession Crisis of 1860-1861. Prior to the Nullification Crisis, Vice President John C. Calhoun, who has historically been considered to be a leading proponent of secession, outlined his doctrine of nullification in 1828. This thesis argues that Calhoun’s doctrine was initially intended to preserve the Union. However, after increasingly high protective tariffs, the state delegates of the South Carolina Nullification Convention radicalized his version of nullification as expressed in the Ordinance of Nullification of 1832. In response to the Ordinance, President Andrew Jackson issued his Proclamation Regarding Nullification. In this document, Jackson vehemently opposed the notion of nullification and secession through various constitutional arguments. Next, this thesis will look at the Bluffton Movement of 1844 and the Nashville Convention of 1850. In the former, Robert Barnwell Rhett pushed for immediate nullification of the new protective Tariff of 1842 or secession. In this way, Rhett further removed Calhoun’s original intention of nullification and radicalized it.
    [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]