pre civil war
What led to the civil war
Signa notes:
Wilmot Proviso which would have prohibited slavery in new territories won from Mexican
American War was turned down.
- Positions of those in power in regards to expansion of slavery into the territories
- Southern Position
Believed slavery was a constitutional right
Cited Missouri Compromise and said the line should continue to the Pacific Ocean as to where slavery could exist and where it could not
Any attempt to curtail slavery was a move to the South's destruction
- Free Soil movement
Composed of Northern Democrats and Whigs
Some abolitionists wanted new territories acquired to be the dominion of free laborers
Not necessarily about morality of slavery
Wanted white opportunity in these territories
- Popular Sovereignty
Argued that the people living in each territory should decide the slavery question for themselves
Exceedingly bitter fight between these three positions and there was no way to compromise
- With so much land that entered after the war, the debate became even worse
- With admission of California and New
Mexico as free states, it tipped the balance of slave states vs free states in the senate
- Each state was equal in the senate so that no law could be passed to stop or prevent slavery since all votes would be 50-50
- Southern states were outraged that the two states were admitted as free because it meant the Senate was now unbalanced
To solve these problems, Henry Clay proposed the compromise of 1850 to calm the tensions
- Proposed Mexican Cession divided into Utah and New Mexico territories and would practice popular sovereignty
- California admitted as free state
- Slave trade banned in Washington DC
- Stricter Fugitive Slave Act
The fugitive slave act erased any calming of tensions the treaty might have other had
- Any slave that escaped to free states could now be captured by their owners and brought back
- Additionally, if any citizen in the north knew about a runaway slave, they were required by law to turn them in
1. Westward Expansion and the Slavery Question
• Context: As the United States expanded westward, the status of slavery in new territories became a contentious issue.
• Each acquisition of new land reignited debates about whether slavery would be permitted in those areas.
2. Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)
• Proposed by: Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois.
• Provisions:
• The northern part of the Louisiana Purchase was divided into two territories: Kansas and Nebraska.
• Slavery in these territories would be decided by popular sovereignty—letting settlers vote on the issue.
• Conflict:
• The Act effectively overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery north of the 36°30′ line.
• Northern abolitionists were outraged, as they had long seen the Missouri Compromise as a safeguard against the spread of slavery.
3. Bleeding Kansas
• Violence Erupts: The decision to allow settlers to determine the status of slavery led to violent clashes between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in Kansas.
• Fraudulent Elections:
• In 1855, a territorial election was held to decide the legislature. Though only 1,500 eligible voters existed, over 6,000 votes were cast due to thousands of pro-slavery Missourians illegally voting.
• The pro-slavery faction established a government in Lecompton, while the anti-slavery faction set up a rival government in Topeka.
• Federal Response: President Franklin Pierce recognized the pro-slavery government as legitimate, further deepening the divide.
4. The Dred Scott Decision (1857)
• Background:
• Dred Scott, an enslaved man, sued for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived in free states and territories (Illinois and Wisconsin) for several years.
• Supreme Court Ruling (led by Chief Justice Roger Taney):
• Scott, as an enslaved person, was not a U.S. citizen and had no right to sue in federal court.
• Enslaved people were considered property, and under the Constitution, Congress could not deprive citizens of their property without due process. Therefore, slaveholders could take enslaved people into any U.S. territory.
• Consequences:
• The decision nullified all previous compromises, as it effectively allowed slavery in all territories, whether they were previously designated as free or not.
• This decision infuriated Northern abolitionists and heightened tensions between the North and South.
5. Political Impact
• Collapse of the Whig Party:
• The Whig Party split into factions over the slavery issue:
• Cotton Whigs: Pro-slavery faction.
• Conscience Whigs: Anti-slavery faction.
• This division weakened the party, leading to its dissolution.
• Rise of the Republican Party:
• Formed in 1854, the Republican Party united various anti-slavery and anti-expansionist groups, including:
• Abolitionists.
• Free-Soilers (those opposing the expansion of slavery into new territories).
• Conscience Whigs.
• Former members of the Know-Nothing Party.
• The Republicans did not advocate for the abolition of slavery where it already existed but opposed its expansion.
• Democratic Party:
• Became increasingly a regional, pro-slavery party, dominant in the South.
• Midterm Elections of 1858:
• Republicans performed well, alarming Southerners who saw the party as a threat to the institution of slavery.
• The growing strength of the Republicans set the stage for the pivotal election of 1860.
Conclusion
• The failures of compromises like the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott Decision demonstrated the deep, irreconcilable divisions over slavery.
• These events undermined the political system, exacerbated sectional tensions, and set the nation on a path toward the Civil War.
The Mexican-American War (1846–1848) was primarily caused by tensions over territory and differing national interests between the United States and Mexico. Key factors include:
1. Annexation of Texas (1845)
• In 1836, Texas declared independence from Mexico and formed the Republic of Texas.
• Mexico refused to recognize Texas’s independence and warned that annexation by the U.S. would lead to war.
• Despite this, the U.S. annexed Texas in 1845, escalating tensions.
2. Boundary Dispute
• The U.S. and Mexico disagreed on Texas’s southern border:
• The U.S. claimed the Rio Grande River as the boundary.
• Mexico argued it was the Nueces River, about 150 miles north.
• This dispute created a contested area that became a flashpoint.
3. Manifest Destiny
• The U.S. was driven by the belief in Manifest Destiny, the idea that it was destined to expand across North America.
• Many Americans sought control of Mexican territories, including California and the Southwest, to fulfill this vision.
4. U.S. Expansionist Policies
• President James K. Polk was a strong proponent of territorial expansion.
• Polk sought to acquire California, New Mexico, and other Mexican territories, but Mexico refused to sell them.
5. The Thornton Affair (1846)
• In April 1846, U.S. forces under General Zachary Taylor were sent into the disputed territory near the Rio Grande.
• Mexican troops attacked, killing 11 U.S. soldiers in what became known as the Thornton Affair.
• Polk used this incident to claim that Mexico had “shed American blood upon American soil” and called for war.
6. Political and Cultural Tensions
• Mexico viewed the U.S. as an aggressor seeking to exploit its internal instability (Mexico was experiencing political turmoil).
• There were cultural differences and mutual distrust between the two nations, contributing to escalating hostilities.
These factors combined to spark the war, which ultimately resulted in a decisive U.S. victory and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. The treaty ceded vast territories to the U.S., including California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.