(1) Attempts to maintain the Union, c1845–1854

1844 election, Mexico, 1848 election, compromise, post-compromise (fugitive slave laws)

1844 election key issue

Texas

1844 election candidates

Polk, Clay

Why was Texas such a big deal?

Texas is a massive state, if it was admitted it could be turned into multiple new states; this would increase representation of the south in the senate. This would greatly upset the sectional difference between the North and South. 

Texas had slaves. Admission of Texas could expand slave power. The majority of Southerners do not own slaves.

Slave owning minority and importance of cotton

There is a select minority with a large number of slaves (particularly in the Deep South) who are extremely wealthy and powerful. The Deep South saw the explosion of cotton plantations who were controlled by a few. These people had a large influence on Southern politics.

Northern view on slavery

• Northerners argued slavery hurt white Southerners too as the institution drove down wages. They see slavery as morally wrong, economically foolish and a detriment to other whites. Therefore, an expansion of slavery in the west is seen as retrograde and is something they vehemently oppose.

clay support

Northerners are drawn to Clay who opposes expansion into Texas, especially due to the conflict with Mexico which could be detrimental to the American economy which was just recovering from a depression.

clay wobbly views impact

However, his views are wobbly as he needs Southern support who had started to support this (due to John Calhoun). This swings favour to James Polk, democratic candidate from Tennessee. So Clay begins to give the impression to his base that he is not as sure of keeping Texas out as he once was. This loses him a Northern base who switch their support to the Liberty Party which was an abolitionist party. Previously abolitionists did not partake in politics as the constitution supported slavery so being apolitical was the best option.

why was polk the candidate for the dems?

Polk was an unlikely winner. Southern democrats all vote in the primaries to oppose Van Buren as democratic candidate so they settle on Polk who was endorsed by Andrew Jackson

polk southern support

Southerners are drawn to Polk’s ideas about Texas and further westward expansion. Southern ideas about expansion was through obtaining land from Mexico (this land is now Arizona, California, some of Wyoming, New Mexico ect;).

what was westward expansion about for northerners

For Northerners westward expansion was about disputes with the British about where the border with Canada lay.

polk northern support

Polk attracted Northern Democrats by taking an aggressive stance on a larger Oregon territory. He managed to disguise his views by talking about westward expansion very generally and keeping an anti-British sentiment (many Americans felt like the British were a threat to them.

Polk also accepted that Northern states needed internal improvement and things like tariffs are needed for this. Perception that tariff barriers are needed to protect themselves from competition like the British. This would protect jobs of Northern industrial workers and keep wages buoyant

polk “manifest destiny”

 America had a provincial right to expand across the continent due to the virtues of American society such as dynamic, well-governed ect; North America should have been one country and old European powers had no place in that. This is an imperialistic idea as native Americans already occupy the coastlines and Mexico occupied the area before.

when did Texas come into the union + Mexico response

march 1844

Mexico breaks off diplomatic relations as they have never acknowledged Texas’ independence.

texas border disputes

Texas is right next to disputed Mexican territory and the Texan borders are not clear. The western boundary of Texas is described by the River Nueces OR Rio Grande. The USA claims the border is described by the Rio Grande which would mean they would take a much larger chunk than Mexico would acknowledge as Texas.

polk offer to Mexico

• Polk attempts to smooth relations between the USA and Mexico and offers $25 million dollars to cede a very large amount of land north of the Rio Grande. This would create a corridor between the eastern and western seaboard, making the USA a continental country extending sea to sea. However, they would not accept this as they felt they have made a great concession with Texas.

what did polk do after Mexico rejected his offer?

 Polk in turn sends General Zachary Taylor along with 80 American soldiers to make a formal claim of the Rio Grande as the westward border of Texas (1846). This ensues a fight which ends with many American soldiers being killed. This begins the Mexican war.

Mexican war result

Mexico loses almost every single engagement and this is a catastrophic war for them.

 For Americans this is a surprisingly successful war.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Feb 1848 - Canada and New Mexico (inc present day Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Colorado and Wyoming). This was 500,000 square miles (⅓ of Mexican territory and ⅖ of the USA’s present territory). USA paid Mexico $15 million and assumed claims of American citizens against Mexico which was $3.25 million.

1847- war was essentially over. 13,000 dead soldiers (2,000 in battle and 11,000 from disease) and had cost $100 million.

how did polk inadvertently help the opposition with the Mexican war ‘heroes’?

It produces war heroes like Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott. James Polk (democrat) appointed these two who have affiliations with the whig party; Polk has breathed life into the opposition.

how did polk piss off northerners

Polk makes a deal with the British where the border of Oregon is 5 degrees latitude less than what Northern democrats wanted. On top of that, he does not deliver on tariffs and internal improvements. This greatly angers Northern Democrats who feel cheated. They felt Southern Democrats were controlling the party and ignoring the interests of Northern Democrats.

what was the wilmot proviso?

This led to the introduction of the Wilmot Proviso (Proviso = a condition) in 1846. Prohibited slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico. This tears open the issue of slavery and the West. This is a condition of money to provide for the war. Money is needed to fund things like soldiers, ammunition etc;. This passes through the House of Representatives (northerners outweigh southerns here). Wilmot is not an abolitionist, he just doesn’t want competition from AAs so doesn’t want them in the West.

wilmot proviso result

Wilmot Proviso passed the HofR (sectional voting, northern majority) but did not pass in the Senate (southern majority, 15 states vs 14 Northern states). The Proviso had tried to pass through the Senate many times. This worries party managers who see a division due to sectional interests which threatens national parties.

why did David Wilmot and the other northerners push for the Wilmot Proviso?

David Wilmot did not care about the morality of slavery. He thinks Southern states are within their rights to have slavery. However he did not want slavery to expand into new territories as he wanted to ensure white people had the opportunity to transform the West into a prosperous opportunity. He believed this could not be achieved by slavery as the future of America should be a white man’s country. He thought slavery should eventually die out and America should return as a white man’s country. Additionally, the ability to determine your own success and failure was a key cornerstone of American values (the American dream). Northerners dislike slavery; some Southerners were extremely wealthy due to slavery but there were also many poor whites as white people could not compete with plantation agriculture or with slave wages. This was not just limited to agriculture, this expanded to many other manual jobs which hurt the wages of whites. A free labour economy would eradicate this issue. If slavery moved into the West then it could not be economically prosperous and instead be a death of the American dream. This was a view shared by many Northerners. Northern Democrats also felt slighted by Polk over the borders of Oregon and his veto of a tariff bill.

southern opposition to wilmot proviso

Southern Democrats were opposed to the Wilmot Proviso. Slavery was a massive cultural feature of the South. It was also a colour line that made whites intrinsically superior to African Americans because they weren’t slaves. Also, if new territories were slave states this would increase slave power in the Senate. If slavery is not allowed to expand then people attracted to these areas will not be slaveholders and so when they become states, they will become free states. This will tip the balance and potentially give free states a 2/3rds majority. The early days of the Republic were Southern and Slaveholder controlled. If they lose this control they could see the end of slavery. To prevent this, they will demand slavery’s access to the West.

Calhoun response to the proviso

Feb 1847 - Calhoun and Jefferson Davis articulate the view that the West is the common property of all of the states and as such, no group of states have the right or authority to prevent any other states from taking their property into the West. This could be deemed unconstitutional as you can’t interfere with someone’s property without due process. From a Southern perspective slaves are property and this supported by the constitution which only counts them as 3/5ths of a person. This was a question of equality as Northern states would not be denied the right to take their property into the West. The common property argument links to states rights and the fact that the federal government cannot interfere with this

admission into the Union and the role of Congress

If the US wants to adopt an area beyond their borders it has to become an organised territory. Congress oversees establishing a territorial government in new territories in the West. When people in the territory establish a constitution they bring it to Congress to sue for admission into the Union as a state.

how has congress played a bigger role in the admitting territories and what would be the southern (e.g. Calhoun) vs northern response to this?

This shows the federal government has a place in new territories. The Federal government (particularly Congress) has in the past played a role in shaping the institutions allowed in territories that come into the union such as the North-West Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise. Calhoun’s argument would deem these as unconstitutional and suggest Congress has no right to limit slavery. Northerners would disagree.

why were these 2, sectional and divide POVs problematic?

The effect of these 2 divisive POVs had party managers scrambling to find an amicable solution as the fear was, this could create a deeper schism that would end in violence. Polk begins to realise the severity of this issue as by 1848 there will be an election and parties have to come up with solutions to motivate people to vote for parties and not just focus on sectional differences.

why was westward expansion not a practical issue ATP?

The issue of slavery in the West was mainly an academic one. In practice, the West did not have a lot of Americans in them and the terrain was mostly desert so was not ideal for Southern-like plantations or Northern-like farms. It was not feasible that in the near future these territories would have the population to sue for statehood.

polk solution to the divisiveness of the mexican cession

The solution Polk had was to extend the NorthWest Ordinance line to split the new Mexican territories into free states and slave states.

response to polk’s solution

However Southerners could not get behind this as their argument was that the federal government had no right to limit slavery. Northerners also disliked this as it still permitted for some expansion of slavery.

lewis cass solution

Another idea that comes up is fashioned by Lewis Cass (a Northerner from Michigan) that is voiced by December 1847 called ‘Popular Sovereignty’. It proposes that people should be able to move into the West and establish their own territories. Then from that point, they could decide whether they want to become free or slave states. This argument was a democratic one as it gave the power to decide what institution was implemented by those who have to live with it. This removed power about slavery’s expansion from Congress which suggests Southerns should be okay with it. This may not be a practical solution but soothes the tide until people actually start inhabiting the new territories.

1848 election candidates

Lewis Cass became the Democratic Candidate for the Presidential election in 1848. The Whig Candidate is Zachary Taylor.

free soil party

presidential candidate was Van Buren, his vice president was John Adams II.

Taylor on slavery

The issue of slavery could pose a rupture between Southern and Northern Whigs and so Taylor does not speak publicly of slavery which allowed people to project their own views onto him.

 Did say that it was not feasible that Congress would ever allow slavery to move into the new territories.

Taylor appeal

Taylor came from a Northern family but he was also a plantation and slave owner. Additionally, he was also a war hero which gave him national standing. He appealed to a wide base.

free soil party appeal

This party was an anti-slavery party which draws abolitionists who want to stop the expansion of slavery. It also attracts people who don’t mind slavery in the South but do not want it in the West (such as David Wilmott). This attracted disgruntled Democrats who were unhappy with Polk, conscious Whigs and people from both parties who did not want to see an expansion of slavery into the West. The Free Soil Party wasn’t going to get Van Buren into the White House but it could hurt their congressional and senatorial seats.

1848 election outcome

Taylor wins by a small margin but performs better than his predecessors in the South.

Taylor won 47.5% of the popular vote and 163 electoral college votes

free soil party 1848 result versus liberty party 1844

LIBERTY: 62,000 votes in 1844 which is 2.3%

FREE SOIL: 291,000 votes which is 10.132%

california goldrush

Gold in Sacramento valley. 1848-9 Gold Rush. Within months, 100,00 people in California. + thousands of Mormons in Salt Lake City in 1846.

rapidly increasing its population. This means that California is able to apply for statehood. Therefore, the Mexican Concession is no longer an academic issue. It is a practical one

issue of California statehood

If California entered as a state it would get 2 senators.

It would most likely be a free state as there has not been time for slave owners to come up and set up plantations. It could be interpreted that President Taylor was trying to tip the balance in favour of free states (and essentially enacting the Wilmot Proviso as it has no opportunity to become a slave state). Southerners perceive this as wrong, especially as by 1848 there were 13 slave states and 13 free states so the admission of California would hurt the balance.

Furthermore, the North had more power in the House of Representatives as they had bigger populations and therefore more representatives. So, the North would have the ultimate majority in all of Congress. This was exacerbated by the fact that the North would have even more power with the electoral college. 

Calhoun feb 1849 speech + effect

Calhoun makes a speech. Says that Southerners should remain united in order to fight a mostly Northern Congress. He also implies a threat of the South leaving the union. However, many Southern Whigs and Democrats are repulsed by Calhoun and think Calhoun is fanning the flames in order to grab power for himself. Many Southern politicians are distrustful of Calhoun. It does not win over large swathes of Southerners but it does raise important questions.

taylor’s ideology on his role as president

The President embodies the nation as a whole as Head of State compared to Congress who are elected by their states. This is important to Taylor who thinks of himself as a public servant of the nation rather than the leader of a political party. He wants to soothe tensions.

issue with Taylor’s ideology

nature of politics isn't about high principle and service, it is about power and he needs Congress to make his solution pass into practice. Therefore he needs support and to do this he needs to use political parties.

presidential patronage

The President’s office had the ability to distribute patronage by various offices and jobs that gave individuals power and even commercial success. For example if someone was given a land office then they could work out what land was popular and then buy some himself. This would ensure loyalty and means that they would fight for the reelection of a President in order to keep their offices.

Taylor and patronage

Taylor does not agree patronage. So he does not give people who worked to get him elected these special positions. This disgruntled and disillusioned people. Taylor falls out with particularly senior members of the Whig Party who had thought that with Taylor as a military man and not a career politician, they could steer him in the direction that they wanted. This leads to resignations of senior Whigs such as Daniel Webster (who was Secretary of State at the time), leaving Taylor as isolated.

William Seward

a sort of new generation Whig. He is an abolitionist and seems to be deeply affected by a visit to the South in 1835. This is reflected by the cases he takes. Not just passively against slavery, wants to take practical steps. He makes public statements about his abolitionism. 

issue with Taylor and Seward connection

President Taylor’s association with Seward could imply he was also an abolitionist. He wanted to rush into statehood to avoid sectional divisions in Congress. However many Southerners could perceive that Taylor is a tool of abolitionists like Seward in order to hurt slavery by preventing it from moving Westward. This not only seems like the first step to killing slavery but also undermines the balance laid out in the constitution.

threat of the free soil party

For example, Ohio. A historically Democrat state. In 1849, in the senatorial election, Salmon Chase who was a Democrat but later joined the Free Soil Party. He aligned with the Democrats on financial issues but was deeply anti-slavery. He wins the senatorial seat as there are many in Ohio fed up with their national party.

Massachusetts - Charles Sumner in 1844 was very hostile to the idea of Texas being brought into the union as he saw the inclusion of Texas as advancing slavery in the union. He is the father of the conscientious Whig movement in Massachusetts.  This leads to a schism between him and the Whig Party. He endorsed Wilmot Proviso and was unhappy with his party for bringing in Mexican land. He advocated for a new Northern party. Sumner was also dissatisfied with Taylor who owned slaves and perceived it as the Whig Party being captured by slave power. August 1848, he attended the Free Soil Party convention in Buffalo, New York. Sumner was elected as a member of the Free Soil Party in 1851. 

why did congress separate from Taylor on the issue of Texas?

Texas is larger than previously envisioned as Texans believe it was defined by the Rio Grande (which is much longer and runs more West) than the official boundary recognised by the federal government. The proposed boundary took a chunk of New Mexico. Taylor made it clear that he would not let the Texans have the increased Western boundary and take that part of New Mexico. Other Southern States were on the side of Texas. Taylor’s hard stance only poured gas on the fire. Members of the Whig Party became increasingly concerned with Taylor and the threat of him sparking a civil war. So, Congressional Whigs separate from Taylor and propose their own plan. Henry Clay defines it as a ‘Compromise’

clay’s omnibus bill

California would be admitted as a free state but New Mexico and Utah would be admitted as territories with no restrictions on slavery + slave-trading should end at the District of Columbia + stricter Fugitive Slave Act + Texas-New Mexico dispute should be settled + Texas should surrender disputed land to New Mexico + Congress would assume the $10 million public debt Texas owed. This was all one bill (‘omnibus’ bill). Taylor opposed this, he thought New Mexico should be admitted with speed.

where was Henry clay from

upper south - Kentucky

where was Daniel Webster from

upper north

upper north view of slavery

The Upper North was more sympathetic to slavery as a lot of the population was European and Southern immigrants. They themselves may not have wanted to live in slave states but they are fearful that if slavery ends then slaves may be able to compete with them in the job market.

But the Upper North wanted there to be restrictions on slavery for all land in the Mexican Cession.

webster and clay views of slavery

believe that slavery in the Upper South is soon ceasing and this will be done voluntarily as slavery is no longer economical in the Upper South who are moving towards industry. This ties them to free labour and the North. Therefore, this will divide the South on slavery. This was an entirely new idea as previously the South had acted as a united power in regards to slavery. This will leave just the Deep South States to protect slavery (of which there are only 7). Putting off a conflict through the compromise makes sure that if the time comes then the threat of the South will be diminished.

Taylor response to omnibus bill

President Taylor is opposed to this and makes it clear that he is opposed to Texas gaining any of New Mexico’s territory. There is some worry that Texas militias will come head to head with federal troops.

support for omnibus bill

upper south and lower north as places of support for union (clay from upper south), eg cotton industry link as northern mill towers turn out finished product of cotton supplied by south, lower north immigrants dont want slaves following them and creating competition for jobs, upper south seeing benefits of not having slavery and industrialising

opposition for omnibus bill

deep south and upper north, home to fire eaters who invested in slaves and keen to see it grow geographically, and abolitionists who very much against slavery growing

action taken by senate regarding compromise

senate committee established in april and in may report 3 bills; omnibus, fugitive slave, abolition of public auctions of slaves in D.C. HOWEVER taylor against it

Nashville convention

june 1850, mississippi democrats call for southern convention to consider question of secession, adjourned in expectation of congress passing compromise measure and want to see what congress will propose before taking action

governor bell vs commander

clash at sante fe over boundary of texas and new mexico and southeners rally in support of texas

Taylor potential impeachment

alexander stephens calls for impeachment of president (could be for high crimes or misdemeanours) in june 1850, reflects exasperation with taylor as he has not actually committed crimes

Taylor death

9th of July

Taylor replacement

Replaced by VP - Millard Fillmore NY (does not get on w/ William Seward who is Senator of NY and anti-abolitionist) who is pro-Compromise. 

He drastically changes the message of the President by getting behind Clay’s compromise, sacking Taylor’s cabinet and putting Daniel Webster as Foreign Secretary.

omnibus bill result

defeated July 1850. There is probably a small majority for each part of the bill but by combining them, those against one part will come together to oppose the bill.

Stephen Douglas compromise

The man now in charge of the Compromise is Stephen Douglas (senator of Illinois). He has a deep understanding of politics. He recognises if you restructure the omnibus bill into a sequence of bills that can get just enough votes to get them over the line. He is a Democrat and is prepared to work with his Whig colleagues to get this through. 

The compromise - statehood for Californoa, territorial status for New Mexico and Utah allowing for popular sovereignty, resolution of Texas-New Mexico boundary dispute. Abolition of slave trade in the District of Columbia and a new fugitive slave act. 

Stephen Douglas compromise outcome

August-September all these bills pass. Fillmore calls this ‘the final settlement’. Sense of victory has won over disaster. 

The compromise had soothed the sectional conflict and tension.

sectional outcome of the compromise

Northerners felt like they were defeated and Southerners felt victorious. But Northerners did gain more. Possibility of Utah or New Mexico still becoming free states.

fugitive slave act

Authorised slave owners to cross state lines to recapture their property and bring it before a local magistrate or federal court to prove ownership. Fugitive slaves had no protection of habeas corpus, right to a jury trial and no right to testify on their own behalf. Those who refused could get a $1000 fine. It not only applied to recent runaways but those who had left the South decades prior;

Pennsylvania vs prigg

1837 Pennsylvania convicted Edward Prigg of kidnapping after he took a slave-woman and her children back to their owner in Maryland. This was appealed to the SC. Pennsylvania’s anti-kidnapping law of 1826 was deemed unconstitutional and upheld the fugitive slave law of 1793 regardless of state legislation. However, the courts ruled that the return of fugitive slaves was a federal responsibility so individual states did not need to help slave catchers.

personal liberty laws

Northern states passed personal liberty laws in the 1850s; (9 passed between 1842 and 1850) which essentially prohibited the use of state facilities in recapturing fugitives. This hindered slave catchers as there was difficulty retrieving slaves without the help of federal marshals.

underground railroads

Carried fugitives toward the North away from slavery

Southerners magnified this issue into the idea that Northerners were stealing great numbers of slaves every year

Estimated to only be several hundred each year and few of these were from the Deep South

The South saw this as a Northern insult to their right to property.

legitimate issues with fugitive slave act

Burden of proof on captured blacks

No legal power to prove their freedom

A claimant would bring alleged fugitives before a federal commissioner (a newly created office) to prove ownership by an affidavit from a slave-state court or testimonies from white witnesses

If the commissioner declared the alleged as free, he would get $5 and for the opposite, he would get $10. 

Required US marshals and deputies to help slave owners or else they would face criminal charges. 

No statute of limitations

fugitive slave act stats

In the first 15 months, 84 fugitives were returned and 5 were released Throughout the 1850s, 332 were returned and only 11 set free. 

No statute of limitations E.g. In February 1851  Mn in Southern Indiana was arrested after he ran away 19 years ago.

Anthony Burns

March 1854, AB escaped slavery in Virginia and travelled to Boston as a stowaway

He was arrested on May 24th after he sent a letter to his brother which alerted his owner of his whereabouts

He was under heavy surveillance by guards in the federal courthouse 

The Vigilance Committee attempted to rescue Burns (led by Thomas Wentworth Higginson) but failed. As a result, Pres. Pierce sent marines, cavalry and artillery who joined state militia and local police. 

The committee tried legal manoeuvres unsuccessfully and attempted to raise funds to buy Burns’ freedom but the US attorney refused to sanction this. 

June 2nd, the troops marched Burns to the ships where he was returned to slavery. 

This ordeal cost $100,000 (equal to around $2 million today)

A federal grand jury indicted Higginson, Theodore Parker, Wendell Phillips and four other white and black abolitionists for riot and inciting to riot. The first indictment was quashed on a technicality and the government dropped the other charges due to the slim likelihood of getting a jury to convict in Massachusetts. 

Textile magnate, Amos A Lawrence said “We went to bed one night old fashioned, conservative, Compromise Union Whigs & waked up stark mad Abolitionists”

The Fire-Eaters response to Northern non-compliance

• Fed into resentment and led to threats of Secession. 

• In 1851, a convention was held by South Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi to calculate the value of the Union.

• The governor of South Carolina said “there is now not the slightest doubt but that…the state will secede”

Impact of Northern non-compliance of Southern Unionism

• A small Democrat minority in Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi joined with Whigs to form Constitutional Union parties to confront Southern Rights Democrats. 

• Unionists who made up a majority of delegates to the state convention, advocated for ‘cooperation’. However, Southern Rights Democrats and Unionists were not that different as they subscribed to the belief of the Georgia Platform.

Southern unionism was dwindling.

Exclusion Laws

1852 Indiana and Iowa & 1853 Illinois : legislation barring immigration of any black person. These states made up a large part of the borders between free and slave states. 

Aim of pleasing the South by denying sanctuary to fugitives and reflected the racist sentiments of whites

Ohio repealed their exclusion law in 1849 but the people were still far more willing to help a slave catcher over a fugitive slave

Uncle Tom’s Cabin – Harriet Beecher Stowe

Published in 1852 and sold 300,000 copies in the US (comparable to at least three million today)

International success

Within a decade it had sold more than two million copies in the US and was the best seller of all time in proportion to population.

Brought to life the trials and tribulations of slaves. 

Efforts to ban it but copies continued to be sold at speed

Tom became a sort of Jesus-like figure with him dying for the sins of humankind in order to save the oppressed as well as his own people. 

Idea that slavery is ungodly and a sin