consequences of mexican war Flashcards
(15 cards)
debate of future of the newly acquired states - New Mexico and California
The Mexican war sparked a debate between Northerners and Southerners because they were concerned about the future of slavery in the newly acquired states ( New Mexico and California). There was Northern fear that the balance between free and slave states would be tipped in favor of the slave states if slavery was allowed to spread into the new territories. If the North got New Mexico and California, the balance would be tipped in favor of them.
California had asked for entry to the Union with a constitution which excluded slavery.
wilmot proviso - 8th august 1846
8th August 1846: David Wilmot (Northern representative), put forward an amendment which sought to prevent the expansion of slavery into the newly acquired territories (New Mexico and California) following the Mexican War.
Northern reaction to the wilmot provisio
Northern Congressmen, both Whigs and Democrats, supported this they feared the expansion of slavery and its potential to undermine the free labor system in the North. However, the majority didn’t so much care about the future of slavery, they cared more about their party position.
southern reaction to the wilmot provisio
Southern Congressmen did not support the Wilmot Proviso as they supported slavery and wanted more slave states.
sectionalism
The divisions were between the North and South not the Whigs and Democrats.
susan mary grants view on wilmot provisio
Susan Mary Grant argues that the Wilmot Proviso was significant as it highlighted and caused the differing opinions of the North and South surrounding slavery.
free soil sentiment
Susan Mary Grant argues that the Wilmot Proviso was significant as it highlighted and caused the differing opinions of the North and South surrounding slavery.
groups in the free soil sentiment
Free – soilers were split into 3 groups: people who supported the Wilmot Proviso but did not regard it the most crucial issue facing the Country. They were open to compromise; Lincoln would be included in this group (many of these people did not bear sympathy for slaves themselves). Anti-slavery people who saw slavery as an evil, socially repressive, economically backward and potentially harmful to the interests of the free states. Lastly, the minority of free-soilers were Abolitionists, who believed that slavery should not be permitted to expand into the territories as it was a violation of human rights.
Southern reaction to the growth of the free-soil sentiment
The growth of the free-soil sentiment caused Southerners to become defensive. They resented Northern attempts to prevent the expansion of slavery as it would damage Southern pride. They argued that the institution was a ‘positive good’, instead of their previous view that it was a ‘necessary evil’.
the calhoun doctrine
John C Calhoun argued that Slavery should be allowed to expand into territories because people had the right to private property and during this time slaves were property.
In February 1847, Senator John C. Calhoun introduced resolutions denying the fight of Congress to exclude slave property from territories. Congress could therefore no longer prevent a slaveholder from bringing their property into the newly acquired territories. The senate did not pass this.
the Senate did not pass the Calhoun Doctrine as the 1848 Presidential election was close and both parties sought to reduce the sectional rifts.
overall sectionalism
SECTIONAL TENSION BEGAN TO RISE FOLLOWING THE MEXICAN WAR. NORTHERNERS SUPPORTED THE WILMOT PROVISO, WHEREAS SOUTHERNERS SUPPORTED THE CALHOUN DOCTRINE.
possible solution to sectional debates over territories
A possible solution was to extend the Missouri Compromise line. March 1820 Missouri Compromise, to balance the admittance of Missouri, Maine was admitted as a free state, it also more importantly agreed that henceforth there shall be no slavery in the Louisianna Purchase Territory North of latitude 36-30.
This however was declined as in 1847-48 various versions of this proposal were passed by the Senate with the backing of Southern Senators as they wanted to keep slavery in all territories, so it was legal, however, the Northern majority in the House voted it down.
popular sovereignity
Popular sovereignty was the idea that territories were capable of having their own governments and could decide if they wanted slavery in their territories or not.
It was identified mainly with Michigan Senator Lewis Cass in 1848.
Southern reaction to popular sovereignity
This met the Souths wishes for no federal intervention and held out the possibility that slavery could be expanded to some of the Mexican territories.
problems with popular sovereignity
Problems with popular sovereignty: removed Congress from the right to decide on what should happen in the territories, practical difficulties. Northern democrats felt like the decision about slavery should be made early on, whereas Northern Democrats felt as though it should happen later so that they would have longer to settle in the territory with their slaves.
