Unit 4 pt. 2 Flashcards
(26 cards)
Westward Expansion: Questions and Issues
Despite their rapid growth, the new states of the West were small relative to those
of the other two sections. To enhance their limited political influence in Congress,
western representatives bargained with politicians from other sections. The
primary concerns of the western states were as follows: (1) “cheap money” (easy
credit) from state banks rather than from the Bank of the United States, (2) low
prices for land sold by the federal government, and (3) improved transportation.
However, on the critical issue of slavery, westerners disagreed over
permitting it. Those settling territory to the south wanted slavery for economic
reasons (labor for the cotton fields), while those settling to the north had no
use for slavery. In 1819, when the Missouri Territory applied to Congress for
statehood, the slavery issue became a subject of angry debate.
the Missouri Compromise
Ever since 1791–1792, when Vermont entered the Union as a free state and
Kentucky entered as a slave state, politicians in Congress had attempted to
preserve a sectional balance between the North and the South. Keeping a
balance in the House of Representatives was difficult because the population in
the North was growing more rapidly than in the South. By 1818, the northern
states held a majority of 105 to 81 in the House. However, in the Senate, the
votes remained divided evenly: 11 slave states and 11 free states. As long as
this balance was preserved, southern senators could block legislation that they
believed threatened the interests of their section.
Missouri’s bid for statehood alarmed the North because slavery was well
established there. If Missouri came in as a slave state, it would tip the political
balance in the South’s favor. Furthermore, Missouri was the first part of the
Louisiana Purchase to apply for statehood. Southerners and northerners alike
worried about the future status of other new territories applying for statehood
from the rest of the vast Louisiana Purchase.
The Missouri Compromise: Talmadge Amendment
Representative James Tallmadge from New York
ignited the debate about the Missouri question by proposing an amendment to
the bill for Missouri’s admission. The amendment called for (1) prohibiting the
further introduction of slaves into Missouri and (2) requiring the children of
Missouri slaves to be emancipated at the age of 25. If adopted, the Tallmadge
Amendment would have led to the gradual elimination of slavery in Missouri.
The amendment was defeated in the Senate as enraged southerners saw it as the
first step in a northern effort to abolish slavery in all states.
Missouri Compromise: Clay’s Proposals
After months of heated debate in Congress and
throughout the nation, Henry Clay won majority support for three bills that,
taken together, represented a compromise:
1. admit Missouri as a slave-holding state
2. admit Maine as a free state
3. prohibit slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Territory north of latitude
36° 30 ́
Both houses passed the bills, and President Monroe added his signature in
March 1820 to what became known as the Missouri Compromise.
Missouri Compromise: Aftermath
Sectional feelings on the slavery issue subsided after 1820. The
Missouri Compromise preserved sectional balance for more than 30 years and
provided time for the nation to mature. Nevertheless, if an era of good feelings
existed, it was badly damaged by the storm of sectional controversy over
Missouri. After this political crisis, Americans were torn between feelings of
nationalism (loyalty to the Union) on the one hand and feelings of sectionalism
(loyalty to one’s own region) on the other.
Difficulties Abroad: Barbary Pirates (Jefferson)
The first major challenge to Jefferson’s foreign policy
came not from a major European power but from the piracy practiced by the
Barbary states on the North African coast. To protect U.S. merchant ships
from being seized by Barbary pirates, Presidents Washington and Adams
had reluctantly agreed to pay tribute to the Barbary governments. The ruler
of Tripoli demanded a higher sum in tribute from Jefferson. Refusing to pay,
Jefferson sent a small fleet of the U.S. Navy to the Mediterranean. Sporadic
fighting with Tripoli lasted for four years (1801–1805). Although the American
navy did not achieve a decisive victory, it did gain some respect and offered a
measure of protection to U.S. vessels trading in Mediterranean waters.
Difficulties ABroad: Challenges to U.S. Neutrality (Jefferson)
Meanwhile, the Napoleonic wars continued
to dominate the politics of Europe—and to shape the commercial economy of the United States. The two principal belligerents, France and Britain, attempted
naval blockades of enemy ports. They regularly seized the ships of neutral
nations and confiscated their cargoes. The chief offender from the U.S. point
of view was Britain, since its navy dominated the Atlantic. Most infuriating
was the British practice of capturing U.S. sailors who it claimed were British
citizens and impressing (forcing) them to serve in the British navy.
Difficulties Abroad: Chesapeake-Leonard Affair
One incident at sea especially aroused
American anger and almost led to war. In 1807, only a few miles off the coast
of Virginia, the British warship Leopard fired on the U.S. warship Chesapeake.
Three Americans were killed, and four others were taken captive and impressed
into the British navy. Anti-British feeling ran high, and many Americans
demanded war. Jefferson, however, resorted to diplomacy and economic
pressure as his response to the crisis.
Difficulties Abroad: Embargo Act (1807)
As an alternative to war, Jefferson persuaded the
Democratic-Republican majority in Congress to pass the Embargo Act in 1807.
This measure prohibited American merchant ships from sailing to any foreign
port. Since the United States was Britain’s largest trading partner, Jefferson
hoped that the British would stop violating the rights of neutral nations
rather than lose U.S. trade. The embargo, however, backfired and brought
greater economic hardship to the United States than to Britain. The British
were determined to control the seas at all costs, and they had little difficulty
substituting supplies from South America for U.S. goods.
The embargo’s effect on the U.S. economy, however, was devastating,
especially for the merchant marine and shipbuilders of New England. So bad
was the depression that a movement developed in the New England states to
secede from the Union.
Recognizing that the Embargo Act had failed, Jefferson called for its repeal
in 1809 during the final days of his presidency. Even after repeal, however, U.S.
ships could trade legally with all nations except Britain and France.
Madison Foreign Policy: Commercial Warfare - Nonintercourse Act of 1809
After the repeal of Jefferson’s disastrous
embargo act, Madison hoped to end economic hardship while maintaining his
country’s rights as a neutral nation. The Nonintercourse Act of 1809 provided
that Americans could now trade with all nations except Britain and France.
Madison Foreign Policy: Commercial Warfare -Macon’s Bill No. 2 (1810)
Economic hardships continued into 1810.
Nathaniel Macon, a member of Congress, introduced a bill that restored U.S.
trade with Britain and France. Macon’s Bill No. 2 provided, however, that if
either Britain or France formally agreed to respect U.S. neutral rights at sea,
then the United States would prohibit trade with that nation’s foe.
Madison Foreign Policy: Commercial Warfare - Napoleon’s Deception
Upon hearing of Congress’s action, Napoleon
announced his intention of revoking the decrees that had violated U.S. neutral
rights. Taking Napoleon at his word, Madison carried out the terms of Macon’s
Bill No. 2 by embargoing U.S. trade with Britain in 1811. However, he soon
realized that Napoleon had no intention of fulfilling his promise. The French
continued to seize American merchant ships.
Causes of the war of 1812: Free Seas and Trade
As a trading nation, the United States depended
upon the free flow of shipping across the Atlantic. Yet the chief belligerents
in Europe, Britain, and France had no interest in respecting neutral rights so
long as they were locked in a life-and-death struggle with one another. They
well remembered that Britain had seemed a cruel enemy during the American
Revolution and the French had supported the colonists. In addition, Jeffersonian
Democratic-Republicans applauded the French for having overthrown their
monarchy in their own revolution. Moreover, even though both the French
and the British violated U.S. neutral rights, the British violations were worse
because of the British navy’s practice of impressing American sailors.
Causes of the war of 1812: Frontier Pressures
Added to long-standing grievances over British actions
at sea were the ambitions of western Americans for more land. Americans
on the frontier longed for the lands of British Canada and Spanish Florida.
Standing in the way were the British and their Indian and Spanish allies.
Conflict with the American Indians was a perennial problem for the restless
westerners. For decades, settlers had been gradually pushing the American
Indians farther and farther westward. In an effort to defend their lands from
further encroachment, Shawnee brothers—a warrior named Tecumseh and
a religious leader known as the Prophet—attempted to unite all of the tribes
east of the Mississippi River. White settlers became suspicious of Tecumseh
and persuaded the governor of the Indiana Territory, General William Henry
Harrison, to take aggressive action. In the Battle of Tippecanoe, in 1811,
Harrison destroyed the Shawnee headquarters, which ended Tecumseh’s efforts
to form an Indian confederacy. The British had provided only a little aid to
Tecumseh. Nevertheless, Americans on the frontier blamed the British for
instigating the rebellion.
Causes of the war of 1812: War Hawks
A congressional election in 1810 had brought a group of
new, young Democratic-Republicans to Congress, many of them from frontier
states (Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio). Known as war hawks because of their
eagerness for war with Britain, they quickly gained significant influence in the
House of Representatives. Led by Henry Clay of Kentucky and John C. Calhoun
of South Carolina, the war hawk members of Congress argued that war with
Britain would be the only way to defend American honor, gain Canada, and
destroy American Indian resistance on the frontier.
Causes of the war of 1812: Declaration of War
British delays in meeting U.S. demands over neutral
rights combined with political pressures from the war hawks finally persuaded
Madison to seek a declaration of war against Britain. Ironically, the British
government had by this time (June 1812) agreed to suspend its naval blockade.
News of its decision reached the White House after Congress had declared war.
War of 1812: A divided nation
Neither Congress nor the American people were united in support of the war.
In Congress, Pennsylvania and Vermont joined the southern and western states
to provide a slight majority for the war declaration. Voting against the war were
most representatives from New York, New Jersey, and New England.
A divided nation: Election of 1812
A similar division of opinion was seen in the presidential
election of 1812, in which Democratic-Republican strength in the South and
West overcame Federalist and antiwar Democratic-Republican opposition to
war in the North. Madison won reelection, defeating De Witt Clinton of New
York, the candidate of the Federalists and antiwar Democratic-Republicans.
A divided nation: Opposition to the War
Americans who opposed the war viewed it as “Mr.
Madison’s War” and the work of the war hawks in Congress. Most outspoken in
their criticism of the war were New England merchants, Federalist politicians,
and “Quids,” or “Old” Democratic-Republicans. New England merchants were
opposed because, after the repeal of the Embargo Act, they were making sizable
profits from the European war and viewed impressment as merely a minor
inconvenience. Both commercial interests and religious ties to Protestantism
made them more sympathetic to the Protestant British than to the Catholic
French. Federalist politicians viewed the war as a Democratic-Republican
scheme to conquer Canada and Florida, with the ultimate aim of increasing
Democratic-Republican voting strength. For their part, the “Quids” criticized
the war because it violated the classic Democratic-Republican commitment to
limited federal power and to the maintenance of peace.
The war of 1812: the treaty of Ghent
By 1814, the British were weary of war. Having fought Napoleon for more than
a decade, they now faced the prospect of maintaining the peace in Europe. At
the same time, Madison’s government recognized that the Americans would
be unable to win a decisive victory. American peace commissioners traveled
to Ghent, Belgium, to discuss terms of peace with British diplomats. On
Christmas Eve 1814, an agreement was reached. The terms halted fighting,
returned all conquered territory to the prewar claimant, and recognized the
prewar boundary between Canada and the United States.
The Treaty of Ghent, promptly ratified by the Senate in 1815, said nothing
at all about the grievances that led to war. Britain made no concessions
concerning impressment, blockades, or other maritime differences. Thus, the
war ended in stalemate with no gain for either side.
The war of 1812: The HARtford Connection
Just before the war ended, the New England states threatened to secede from
the Union. Bitterly opposed to both the war and the Democratic-Republican
government in Washington, radical Federalists in New England urged that the
Constitution be amended and that, as a last resort, secession be voted upon. To
consider these matters, a special convention was held at Hartford, Connecticut,
in December 1814. Delegates from the New England states rejected the
radical calls for secession. But to limit the growing power of the Democratic-
Republicans in the South and West, they adopted a number of proposals. One
of them called for a two-thirds vote of both houses for any future declaration
of war.
Shortly after the convention dissolved, news came of both Jackson’s victory
at New Orleans and the Treaty of Ghent. These events ended criticism of the
war and further weakened the Federalists by stamping them as unpatriotic.
The war of 1812: Legacy
- Having survived two wars with Britain, the United States gained the
respect of other nations. - The United States accepted Canada as a part of the British Empire.
- Denounced for its talk of secession, the Federalist Party came to an
end as a national force and declined even in New England. - Talk of nullification and secession in New England set a precedent that
would later be used by the South. - Abandoned by the British, American Indians were forced to surrender
land to White settlement. - With the British naval blockade limiting European goods, U.S.
factories were built and Americans moved toward industrial
self-sufficiency. - War heroes such as Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison
would soon be in the forefront of a new generation of political leaders. - The feeling of nationalism grew stronger as did a belief that the future
for the United States lay in the West and away from Europe.
Florida: Jackson’s Military Campaign (Monroe era)
In late 1817, Monroe commissioned
General Jackson to stop the raiders and, if necessary, pursue them across
the border into Spanish west Florida. Jackson carried out his orders with a
vengeance and probably went beyond his instructions. In 1818, he led a force
of militia into Florida, destroyed Seminole villages, and hanged two Seminole
chiefs. Capturing Pensacola, Jackson drove out the Spanish governor and
hanged two British traders accused of aiding the Seminoles.
Florida Purchase Treaty (1819)
Spain, worried that the United States
would seize Florida and preoccupied with troubles in Latin America, decided
to get the best possible terms for Florida. By treaty in 1819, Spain turned over
all of its possessions in Florida and its own claims in the Oregon Territory to
the United States. In exchange, the United States agreed to assume $5 million
in claims against Spain and give up any U.S. territorial claims to the Spanish
province of Texas. The agreement is also called the Adams-Onís Treaty.
