1850s Compromise & Slavery in the US PDF

An Uneasy Peace The Mexican War was over. Every goal set by the United States government when declaring war against Mexico was reached — and then some. The ports of California were now under the United States flag. In fact, the United States increased its territory by more than one third as a result...

An Uneasy Peace The Mexican War was over. Every goal set by the United States government when declaring war against Mexico was reached — and then some. The ports of California were now under the United States flag. In fact, the United States increased its territory by more than one third as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. One would expect Americans to rejoice and come together in a burst of postwar nationalism. These were not, however, ordinary times. The land obtained from Mexico quickly became the subject of a bitter feud between the Northern Whigs and the Southern Democrats. Abolitionists rightly feared that attempts would be made to plant cotton in the new territory, which would bring the blight of slavery. Slaveholders feared that if slavery were prohibited in the new territory, southern slaveholding states would lose power in Congress. Compromise of 1850 map The Compromise of 1850 settled the issue of slavery temporarily, but may have further divided the country along the lines of slave and free territory. Even before the treaty ending the war had been ratified by the Senate, both houses of Congress became the scene of angry debate over the spoils of war. Congress represented every political philosophy regarding slavery. Legal scholars discussed the right of Congress — or anyone else — to restrict slavery from the new lands. The specter of secession had risen again. Desperately the elder statesmen of the federal legislature proposed methods of keeping the country together. The country's founders left no clear solution to the issue of slavery in the Constitution. Popular sovereignty, amendment, nullification, and secession were all discussed as possible remedies. Conflict was avoided with the passing of the Compromise of 1850. The cooler heads prevailed — this time. Wilmot's Proviso By the standards of his day, David Wilmot could be considered a racist. Yet the Pennsylvania representative was so adamantly against the extension of slavery to lands ceded by Mexico, he made a proposition that would divide the Congress. On August 8, 1846, Wilmot introduced legislation in the House that boldly declared, "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist" in lands won in the Mexican-American War. If he was not opposed to slavery, why would Wilmot propose such an action? Why would the north, which only contained a small, but growing minority, of abolitionists, agree? Wilmot and other northerners were angered by President Polk. They felt that the entire Cabinet and national agenda were dominated by southern minds and southern principles. Polk was willing to fight for southern territory, but proved willing to compromise when it came to the north. Polk had lowered the tariff and denied funds for internal improvements, both to the dismay of northerners. Now they felt a war was being fought to extend the southern way of life. The term "SLAVE POWER" jumped off the lips of northern lawmakers when they angrily referred to their southern colleagues. It was time for northerners to be heard. Though Wilmot's heart did not bleed for the slave, he envisioned California as a place where free white Pennsylvanians could work without the competition of slave labor. Since the north was more populous and had more Representatives in the House, the Wilmot Proviso passed. Laws require the approval of both houses of Congress, however. The Senate, equally divided between free states and slave states could not muster the majority necessary for approval. Angrily the House passed Wilmot’s Proviso several times, all to no avail. It would never become law. For years, the arguments for and against slavery were debated in the churches and in the newspapers. The House of Representatives had passed a gag rule forbidding the discussion of slavery for much of the previous decade. The issue could no longer be avoided. Lawmakers in the House and Senate, north and south, would have to stand up and be counted. Popular Sovereignty In the heat of the Wilmot Proviso debate, many southern lawmakers began to question the right of Congress to determine the status of slavery in any territory. According to John Calhoun, the territories belonged to all the states. Why should a citizen of one state be denied the right to take his property, including slaves, into territory owned by all? This line of reasoning began to dominate the southern argument. The Congress had a precedent for outlawing slavery in territories. It had done so in the Old Northwest with the passing of the Northwest Ordinance in 1787. The Missouri Compromise also had banned slavery above the 36º30' latitude lines. But times were different. As the Mexican War drew to a close and no compromise could be reached in the Wilmot argument, the 1848 campaign for President became heated. The Democratic standard bearer, Lewis Cass of Michigan, coined the term "popular sovereignty" for a new solution that had begun to emerge. The premise was simple. Let the people of the territories themselves decide whether slavery would be permitted. The solution seemed perfect. In a country that has championed democracy, letting the people decide seemed right, if not obvious. However simple popular sovereignty seemed, it was difficult to put into practice. By what means would the people decide? Directly or indirectly? If a popular vote were scheduled, what guarantees could be made against voter fraud? If slavery were voted down, would the individuals who already owned slaves be allowed to keep them? Cass and the Democrats did not say. His opponent, Zachary Taylor, ignored the issue of slavery altogether in his campaign, and won the Election of 1848. As the 1840s melted into the 1850s, Stephen Douglas became the loudest proponent of popular sovereignty. As long as the issue was discussed theoretically, he had many supporters. In fact, to many, popular sovereignty was the perfect means to avoid the problem. But problems do not tend to disappear when they are evaded — they often become worse. The Compromise of 1850 The most prominent men in the Congress — John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, and led by Henry Clay — had put together a plan to try to make all sides somewhat happy. Still the Congress debated the contentious issues well into the summer. Each time Clay's Compromise was set forth for a vote, it did not receive a majority. Henry Clay himself had to leave in sickness, before the dispute could be resolved. In his place, Stephen Douglas worked tirelessly to end the fight. On July 9, President Zachary Taylor died of food poisoning. His successor, Millard Filmore, was much more interested in compromise. The environment for a deal was set. By September, Clay's Compromise became law. California was admitted to the Union as the 16th free state. In exchange, the south was guaranteed that no federal restrictions on slavery would be placed on Utah or New Mexico territories. Texas lost its boundary claims in New Mexico, but the Congress compensated Texas with $10 million. Slavery was maintained in the nation's capital, but the slave trade was prohibited. Finally, and most controversially, a FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW was passed, requiring northerners to return runaway slaves to their owners under penalty of law. Compromise of 1850 The Compromise of 1850 overturned the Missouri Compromise and left the overall issue of slavery unsettled.  Compromise of 1850 North Gets South Gets 1) California admitted as a free state 1) No slavery restrictions in Utah or New Mexico territories 2) Slave trade prohibited in Washington D.C. 2) Slaveholding permitted in Washington D.C. 3) Texas loses boundary dispute with 3) Texas gets $10 million New Mexico 4) Fugitive Slave Law Who won and who lost in the deal? Although each side received benefits, the north seemed to gain the most. The balance of the Senate was now with the free states, although California often voted with the south on many issues in the 1850s. The major victory for the south was the Fugitive Slave Law. In the end, the north refused to enforce it. Massachusetts even called for its nullification, stealing an argument from John C. Calhoun. Northerners claimed the law was unfair. The flagrant violation of the Fugitive Slave Law set the scene for the tempest that emerged later in the decade. But for now, Americans hoped against hope that the fragile peace would prevail. "Bleeding Kansas" For decades, both northern states and southern states had threatened secession and dissolution of the Union over the question of where slavery was to be permitted. At issue was power. Both sides sought to limit the governing power of the other by maintaining a balance of membership in Congress. This meant ensuring that admission of a new state where slavery was outlawed was matched by a state permitting slavery. For example, at the same time that Missouri entered the Union as a slave state, Maine entered the Union as a free state. New states were organized into self-governing territories before they became states. Hence, they developed a position on the slavery issue well before their admission to the Union. Southerners held that slavery must be permitted in all territories. Northerners held that slavery must not be extended into new territories. If slavery were not permitted in the territories, slavery would never gain a foothold within them and southern power in Congress would gradually erode. If either side were successful in gaining a distinct advantage, many felt disunion and civil war would follow. Kansas would be the battleground on which the north and south would first fight. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed the voters in the Kansas-Nebraska territory to decide if they wanted slavery or not, led to widespread violence, hatred, anger, and eventually to statehood and to corruption. Men from neighboring Missouri stuffed ballot boxes in Lecompton, Kansas to ensure that a legislature friendly to slavery would be elected. Anti-slavery, or free soil, settlers formed a legislature of their own in Lawrence, Kansas. Within two years, there would be armed conflict between proponents of slavery and those against it. This fighting in Kansas led to a further polarization in Congress and among the American people. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, from the newly-formed Republican Party, led many southerners to believe that their rights would never be protected in the U.S. government.