DBQ Practice: Territorial Expansion and Sectional Conflict (1844-1850)
Historical Context
Focus on the territorial expansion due to Manifest Destiny and its link to sectional conflicts.
The Louisiana Purchase (1803):
- Doubled the size of the United States under President Thomas Jefferson's administration.
- Initiated westward expansion leading to numerous conflicts, ultimately contributing to the Civil War and the Reconstruction era.
Territorial Expansion and Sectional Conflicts
Manifest Destiny and its implications:
- Expansion westward increased territorial disputes and sectional divisions.
Increased territorial disputes led to:
- Debates over the domestic institutions of new states.
- Conflicts over policies like the Wilmot Proviso.
- A deepening of sectionalism across the nation.
Impact of Territorial Expansion on Domestic Institutions
Document 1: Democratic Newspaper Editorial
- Discusses the unrest in Congress regarding the inclusion of new territories (Oregon and Texas).
- Concerns over maintaining the balance between slave and free states to prevent political favoritism.
Texas Annexation:
- Large territory equivalent to 4-5 states, raising concerns among Northern abolitionists about upsetting Senate balance.
- Annexation seen as a catalyst for sectional tensions between the North and South.
Political Perspectives and Consequences
Document 2: Henry Clay's View
- Proposed the Compromise of 1850:
- Admitted California as a free state.
- Enforced a stricter fugitive slave law.
- Claimed that annexation would ignite war with Mexico and inflame sectional tensions.
Wilmot Proviso and its Sectional Implications
Document 4: David Wilmot's Proposal
- Aimed to ban slavery in all territory gained from the Mexican-American War (Mexican Cession).
- Southern backlash: perceived infringement on rights and interests.
- Northern support as a means to gain political power and limit the spread of slavery.
- Voting patterns demonstrated stark contrasts between the North (support) and South (opposition).
Violence and Physical Conflict
Outside Information: Bleeding Kansas
- After the Compromise of 1850, territories (Kansas and Nebraska) allowed to determine their slavery status via popular sovereignty.
- Southern “border ruffians” moved to Kansas to influence votes, leading to violent confrontations known as “Bleeding Kansas.”
Illustrates physical violence as a result of deepening sectional divides.
Mexican-American War and Increasing Sectional Conflict
Document 3: Abraham Lincoln's Opposition
- Critique of the war as fraudulent, asserting that Polk provoked Mexico to fulfill expansionist ambitions.
- Indicates sectional conflict: South supported expansion, while North feared loss of political power.
- Lincoln's position reveals mounting tensions during this period.
Lincoln’s Evolving Position on Slavery
Initially part of the Free-Soil party, advocating for restricting slavery during westward expansion.
As president, his stance evolved from limiting slavery to aiming for its eradication (as shown in the Emancipation Proclamation).
Manifest Destiny and National Division
Document 7: Illustrative Representation
- Visual depiction of how Manifest Destiny under President James K. Polk exacerbated divisions related to the slavery debate.
Continuity of Discontent: Proclamation Line of 1763
Historical context of westward expansion restrictions:
- Proclamation Line aimed to prevent conflict with Native Americans by limiting colonial expansion.
- Sowed discontent among settlers, revealing long-standing resistance to restrictions on westward movement.
Conclusion
Territorial expansion driven by Manifest Destiny between 1844 and 1850 significantly promoted sectional conflicts in the United States by:
- Igniting debates over domestic institutions.
- Prompting contentious policies like the Wilmot Proviso.
- Dividing the nation due to conflicting interests of the North and South regarding slavery.