Chapter Four: Texas, Mexico, and the Compromise of 1850 - Study Notes

The Annexation of Texas

• Chapter context: Chapter Four is titled Texas, Mexico, and the Compromise of 1850, with the chapter outline listing major sections:
  • The Annexation of Texas
  • Manifest Destiny and the Mexican War
  • The Wilmot Proviso
  • The Election of 1848
  • The Compromise of 1850
  • The Election of 1852
• A key early quotation underscores the tension: "We must \"satisfy the northern people… that we are not to extend the institution of slavery as a result of this war.\"" — Gideon Welles, Connecticut Democrat, 1846
• Background: Americans began migrating to Texas in the 1820s at the invitation of a Mexican government that had just won independence from Spain.
• By 1830 Mexico grew alarmed by the influx of Americans who differed in language, culture, political allegiance, and who increasingly supported slavery in defiance of Mexico's abolition of the institution.
• Tensions over land claims and political rights culminated in 1836 with Texan independence, the Alamo massacre, and the decisive Texan victory at San Jacinto (April 21, 1836).
• Santa Anna was captured; in exchange for his release, he signed a treaty granting Texas independence; the Mexican Congress repudiated the treaty, but Texans established the Lone Star Republic and sought annexation by the United States.
• Annexation contention in Washington: antislavery Whigs accused Southern Democrats of collusion with Texans to expand slave territory; some Northern Democrats also opposed annexation.
• Prior presidents' stance: Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren kept Texas at arm's length to preserve peace with Mexico and party harmony.

The Annexation of Texas (detailed)

• Tyler era and the southern rallying issue:
  • After the death of William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, a Virginia Whig with few Whig allies, sought a unifying issue and chose Texas annexation as the issue likely to rally the South.
  • Upshur (secretary of state) opened negotiations with Texas for a treaty of annexation; concerns about British involvement in Texas grew (Britain had recognized and traded with the republic; abolitionists hoped Britain would influence Texas toward emancipation).
  • Southern leaders framed annexation as essential to securing slavery and preventing abolitionist interference; the claim was that annexation would secure the South's political power in the federal government.
• Upshur’s death and Calhoun’s role:
  • An accident killed Upshur in February 1844; Calhoun became secretary of state and completed the annexation treaty, presenting it to the Senate in April.
  • Calhoun publicly argued that annexation was necessary to forestall abolitionist plots and to protect slavery as an "essential to the peace, safety, and prosperity" of the United States.
  • Northern senators opposed this open proslavery justification; southern Whigs resisted aiding Tyler who was seen as renegade from the Whig Party.
• The 1844 presidential campaign and its impact:
  • Henry Clay (Whig) and Martin Van Buren (Democrat) both opposed annexation in letters published on April 27, 1844.
  • Clay’s position remained cautious; Van Buren’s opposition intensified the push by Calhoun Democrats to block his nomination.
  • The Democratic Party used a two-thirds rule to nominate a candidate; after eight ballots, the convention chose James K. Polk (a Tennessee Democrat and ardent annexationist) as a dark horse candidate.
  • Polk’s victory was framed by Southern proponents as a win for Texas and slavery expansion; the slogan and mood in the South were heated with Texas as a proxy for broader expansion.
  • The 1844 election results:
  • Polk won the presidency with a slender margin overall, but his victory was celebrated in the South as a mandate for Texas annexation.
• The presidential outcome and the legislative path to annex Texas:
  • Polk’s victory did not require immediate two-thirds Senate approval; Tyler used a joint resolution of annexation (a simple majority in both houses) to bypass the two-thirds treaty requirement.
  • In March 1845, the joint resolution passed, and Texas entered the Union at the end of 1845.
• Why Northern Democrats supported Texas:
  • In exchange for Texas, Northern Democrats expected Southern support for extending U.S. territory to the Pacific Northwest (Oregon).
  • 1844 Democratic platform pledged to acquire the whole of the Oregon territory as well as Texas; Oregon stretched from present-day California/Nevada to the southern border of Russian Alaska.
• Oregon question and the role of public sentiment:
  • Since 1818, Britain and the United States jointly occupied Oregon; American settlers desired U.S. control of the Willamette Valley.
  • In 1845 Polk recommended terminating joint occupation and asserting the U.S. claim to the entire Oregon territory north to about the latitude 54°40′.
  • The slogan "Fifty-four forty or fight!" captured the ambition of expansionists but created a test for Northern Democrats: could they support freeing lands as vigorously as extending slave lands?
  • Polk seduced the Northern Democrats by proposing a compromise solution rather than full-scale war with Britain; he was willing to war with Mexico but not with Britain, which created political hesitancy among some Northern Democrats about Oregon.
• The resulting balance in Oregon and Texas:
  • Polk was willing to pursue war against Mexico to gain the Southwest but reluctant to risk war with Britain to acquire all of Oregon.
  • The ultimate approach to Oregon became a casualty of the Mexican War; a settlement was reached on 49° parallel instead of the 54°40′ line, signaling a pragmatic compromise.
  • In the Senate, 12 Northern Democrats rebelled against the Oregon compromise; ratification depended on bipartisan Whig support, which was unanimous among Whigs who favored peace with Britain and were cool toward Manifest Destiny.
  • Northern Democrats accused Southern colleagues of bad faith: "Texas and Oregon were born in the same instant, nursed and cradled in the same cradle," yet Southern support for Texas helped them obstruct Oregon.

Manifest Destiny and the Mexican War

• The political context of Manifest Destiny:
  • The period witnessed heated debates about whether the United States should extend slavery into newly acquired territories.
  • The 1844-1845 political shifts intensified as Polk pursued annexation and territorial expansion, while the North faced an aggressive pro-slavery expansionist agenda.
• The road to war with Mexico (engineered by Polk):
  • Three central issues framed U.S.-Mexico tensions:
    1) Annexation of Texas (already achieved by late 1845, but its border remained disputed).
    2) The Texas border dispute: the Nueces River (Mexico’s view) versus the Rio Grande (Texan/US view).
    3) The future of California and New Mexico (
    sought by the United States for strategic and economic reasons).
  • Polk’s carrot-and-stick strategy (1845):
  • Carrot: Slidell was sent to Mexico City with authority to offer up to 30,000,000 for California and New Mexico, and to take on Mexican debts in exchange for Mexico’s acceptance of the Rio Grande as the Texas border.
  • Stick: American troops under General Zachary Taylor were deployed into territory south of the Nueces; a naval squadron patrolled the Mexican coast; U.S. consular authorities in Monterey, California, were authorized to act as secret agents to stir pro-American sentiment among local populations.
  • Contingency orders were issued to the Pacific fleet to seize California ports if war broke out.
• Mexican response and the onset of war:
  • The Mexican government refused to receive Slidell.
  • A revolution in Mexico City brought a militant anti-American regime to power; they pledged to recover Texas as a stolen province.
  • In January 1846, Polk ordered Taylor’s troops to the Rio Grande, and the U.S. blockaded the river with naval forces; Mexican troops positioned themselves across the river from Taylor.
  • In April 1846, a skirmish north of the Rio Grande resulted in American deaths; Polk used this incident to justify a war message to Congress (May 11, 1846):
  • Quote: "Notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, war exists by the act of Mexi co herself, [for she has] invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil."
  • Both sides framed the conflict in morally loaded terms; abolitionists, antislavery Whigs, and many Southern Whigs argued that the war was a slave-power conspiracy intended to extend slavery.
• Domestic opposition and cultural response to the war:
  • Some Americans viewed the war as a conspiracy to expand slavery into new territories.
  • Abolitionist and antiwar sentiment grew in the North; the war’s legitimacy was attacked by many, including notable poets and lawmakers.
  • James Russell Lowell’s Hosea Biglow poems circulated in opposition, portraying the war as a Southern-driven attempt to plunder free lands and extend slavery.
  • The Massachusetts legislature declared the war unconstitutional and framed it as a project to extend slavery and strengthen the slave power; such denunciations framed the war within a broader moral and constitutional critique.
• The Oregon question as a war-time casualty:
  • The demand for all of Oregon receded as the war with Mexico escalated; Polk’s pragmatic approach prioritized Mexican war aims over pursuing all of Oregon.
  • The political split over Oregon reflected broader sectional tensions: a coalition of Whigs (who preferred peace with Britain) and Northern Democrats who hesitated to fully empower Southern expansionists.
• Key figures and arguments:
  • Polk’s administration favored expansionist aims but employed diplomacy and selective war to maximize gains with a manageable level of risk.
  • Northern critics accused Southern leaders of acting in defense of slavery, rather than the broader national interest.
  • The war divided the nation along sectional lines, contributing to growing political realignment toward sectional parties and foreshadowing the emergence of the Republican party later in the century.

The Wilmot Proviso, Elections of 1848–1852, and the Compromise of 1850 (outline mentions only; content not included in the provided transcript)

• The transcript explicitly lists these topics in the chapter outline, but no detailed content is provided in the excerpt:
  • The Wilmot Proviso
  • The Election of 1848
  • The Compromise of 1850
  • The Election of 1852
• These topics are part of the broader narrative of how the Mexican War and territorial expansion amplified sectional tensions over slavery and contributed to political realignments that culminated in the antebellum era.

Key numerical references and formulas

• Two-thirds Senate majority for treaties (before bypass): rac{2}{3} ext{ of the Senate}
• Polk’s 1844 election margin (national popular vote):
  • Polk: 49.6 ext{ extbackslash%}
  • Clay: 48.1 ext{ extbackslash%}
  • Liberty Party: about 3 ext{ extbackslash%} of the Northern total, contributing to the sectional split
• Oregon latitude proposal: 54^\circ 40' (the slogan "Fifty-four forty or fight!")
• California and New Mexico purchase and debt assumption offer to Mexico: up to 30{,}000{,}000
• River borders discussed: Nueces River vs. Rio Grande
• Timeline anchors (selected):
  • 1818: Joint occupation of Oregon begins (Britain and the U.S.)
  • 1836: Texan independence; San Jacinto; Santa Anna captured
  • 1844–1845: Texas annexation and the drift toward war with Mexico; Oregon dispute escalates
  • 1845: Texas statehood; Oregon issue remains unresolved at the outset of Polk’s presidency
  • May 11, 1846: Polk’s war message to Congress

Key terms and concepts to remember

• Annexation: The process by which Texas entered the United States as a state in 1845 after earlier attempts via treaty and political maneuvering.
• Manifest Destiny: The belief that the United States was destined to expand across the North American continent; used to justify expansionist policies.
• Carrot-and-stick diplomacy: A strategy combining inducements (carrots) and threats (sticks) to shape the behavior of other states (e.g., Slidell mission and military maneuvers prior to the Mexican War).
• Slave power conspiracy: A view held by abolitionists and some Northern politicians that the expansion of territories would be used to spread slavery and dominate national politics.
• Fifty-four forty or fight: The Oregon slogan expressing the desire to claim the northernmost boundary of the Oregon Territory up to the latitude of 54°40′; later compromised to a lower boundary to avoid war with Britain.
• Joint resolution vs. treaty: A legislative path to annexation that bypassed the two-thirds Senate requirement for treaties by using a simple majority in both houses.
• Nueces vs. Rio Grande: Disputed border lines between Texas and Mexico; central to the outbreak of the Mexican War.
• Slidell mission: A diplomatic effort to purchase California and New Mexico and settle debts in exchange for recognizing the Rio Grande boundary.
• Hosea Biglow and public poetry: Cultural critique used to mobilize antiwar sentiment in the North (e.g., Lowell’s poems).

Connections to broader themes

• The events illustrate how territorial expansion was deeply entangled with the institution of slavery and sectional power in Congress.
• The political realignments of the era foreshadowed the collapse of the Whig party and the rise of sectional parties centered around the slavery question.
• The Mexican War and its justification reveal contested narratives about national honor, security, and economic interests, as well as the moral debates surrounding slavery in new territories.
• The Oregon dispute shows the interplay between diplomacy and domestic political calculations across regional interests.

Practical and ethical implications

• Ethical debates centered on whether expansion should be pursued if it meant extending or strengthening the institution of slavery.
• The role of propaganda and public opinion in shaping policy, including the use of slogans, poetry, and newspapers to mobilize support or opposition.
• The long-term consequences for national cohesion and constitutional interpretation (e.g., bypassing treaty requirements via joint resolutions).