Slavery and the West:Chapter 12, Section 2

Differences in economic, political, and social beliefs and practices can lead to division within a nation and have

lasting consequences. The question of whether to admit new states as free states or slave states arose.

Road to Civil War

Missouri Compromise• Main idea: The Missouri Compromise helped

resolve the issue of whether new states would be slave states or free states.

Sectionalism - exaggerated loyalty to a region• 1819, Missouri requested to join Union, creating a

problem/angry debate, worried Jefferson and J.Q.Adams (debate seen as “a mere preamble to a great tragic volume”– Missouri = slaveholding / territory 5:1 whites to slaves, with

a constitution that allowed slavery

• 1819, 11 states permitted slaves, and 11 did not– 2 members from each state in Senate, meant the Union was

evenly balanced– A new state would upset that balance

• North and South argued over other issues too…– Different economic systems (industry vs. rural farms)– New land in western territories– Restrictions/bans on slavery

Clay’s Proposal• Senate suggested way to resolve crisis,

skillfully maneuvered passage by Speaker of the House Henry Clay of KY

• Suggested the Missouri Compromise

– Preserving the balance of slave states

and free states. Quieting debate…for now

• Result?

– Missouri admitted as slave state while Maine was also admitted into Union as a free state

– Slavery prohibited in remainder of Louisiana Purchase north of 36/30 N

1. What bigger issue was Adams predicting when he called the debate over Missouri a “mere preamble”?

2. How did sectionalism contribute to the ongoing debate about the admission of states?

3. What forms does sectionalism take today?

Nullification• Main idea: The Kentucky Resolution first advanced the

doctrine of nullification.

• Southerners argues that states could nullify federal laws that were considered unconstitutional…an issue that would not be resolved quickly

Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions

• 1798-99, nullification first expressed at Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and written by Jefferson and Madison– Declared Federalists’ (past) Alien and Sedition Acts

unconstitutional• Used 10th amendment to argue

– Federal government formed by contract with states– Federal government had limited power– So if federal government passes law going beyond their

powers, state had right to nullify

Hartford Convention• Issue of nullification reappeared during War of 1812

among Federalists of New England who opposed war– Angry over war’s influence on trade/economy– Believed war was brought on by Republicans in

South and West• Delegates from New England revived idea of

nullification and proposed amendments to Constitution– No progress made from their demands, and by the

end of the war their party had declined

Tariff Controversy• Nullification popped up AGAIN in 1820-30s over

protective tariffs– Raised prices on goods from overseas

– Made American products cheaper

• Southerners at this time were convinced that all tariffs were harmful to their way of life– Only helping industries in the North

– Raised prices on manufactured goods purchased in the South• Felt unjust for them to bear the expense for development in another

part of the country if it made things harder on their part of it

Ordinance of Nullification• 1828, tariff was passed, John C. Calhoun mad

– As a Southerner he considered it “unconstitutional, oppressive, and unjust”

– Based argument on Jefferson/Madison in Virginia/Kentucky resolutions and questioned supremacy of national gov. vs. state sovereignty

• 1832, new tariff law passed– Lowered tax rates (but not enough to some)

• S.C. called for convention to vote on Ordinance of Nullification against new tariff raising important question– If states were sovereign they had a right to secede from

Union..?

States and Nullification• 1830, Calhoun’s nullification doctrine went to the Senate

angering people in West– Thought bill could limit sale of western lands– Senator Robert Y. Hayne said western states could nullify the bill if

it became a law– Daniel Webster replied, arguing that the Constitution was more

than a compact between states to be interpreted as each state saw necessary

– Only the Supreme Court had the right to deem laws unconstitutional

– Attempts to undermine the government and Constitution should be seen as treason

• 1833, nullification crisis temporarily halted– Compromise: tariff lowered, Ordinance of Nullification withdrawn

1. How did Webster’s view of the Constitution differ from Calhoun’s?

2. Why did the South and the Northeast try to use nullification?

New Western Lands• Main idea: In the 1840s, the issue of slavery in new territories

was once again at the forefront.• Gov. able to avoid slavery for a few years, brought back to

Congress over dispute of slavery in new territories (TX,CA,NM)– Southerners wanted these new territories, where slavery existed,

or could exist

Conflicting Views• During war with Mexico, Wilmot Provisointroduced to Congress

– Specified that slavery should be prohibitedin any lands that might be acquired fromMexico

• South wasn’t happy about that– Wanted to keep the possibility of introducing slavery to CA/NM– Calhoun offered another proposal, stating neither Congress or

gov. can put bans on territories (not states) in regards to slavery

• Neither proposal passed, just caused bitter debate• In the meantime, new territories had been acquired, but no

resolution to issue of slavery in those new places

Free-Soil Party• Slavery debate led to new political party

– Neither Whigs nor Democrats took a stand on slavery (afraid of losing votes)

– Failure to take a stand lost them votes anyway, voters were angry about it

• Antislavery Whigs & Democrats left parties to join with Liberty Party to form Free-Soil Party– “Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, Free Men”

• Whig candidate, Zachary Taylor, won election, while Free-Soil candidate, former president Van Buren, failed to receive an electoral vote. But several party members won seats in Congress

1. Why did the United States not annex Texas in 1836?2. What area to the north of California and New Mexico,

which could be turned into free states, was also added to the United States around this time?

3. How did the acquisition of new territory heighten the sectional tensions over slavery?

4. Why did the new antislavery party call itself the “Free Soil” Party?

5. How was John C. Calhoun’s proposal different from the Wilmot Proviso?

The Search for Compromise• Main idea: Henry Clay presented a plan to settle the slavery

debate that resulted in the Compromise of 1850.• President Taylor urged CA/NM to apply for statehood, said

their citizens could decide whether to allow slaves or not– CA applied, which took a backseat to other problems going

on in Congress:• Antislavery movement in DC, Southerners “fugitive law”,

Texas-Mexico border dispute– CA would upset balance of free/slave states that were equal

at 15 states each• It appeared the CA, NM, OR, and UT would enter as free states

and South would always be outvoted• Southerners began talking about secession

Debate Begins

• 1850, Senator Henry Clay presents

a plan to settle division in Congress– 1) CA would be admitted as free state

– 2) NM would have no restrictions on slavery

– 3) New Texas-Mexico border dispute would be settled in favor of NM

– 4) Slave trade (NOT slavery) would be abolished in DC

– 5) Stronger fugitive slave law

• Debate lasted for 7 months!– Calhoun argued that protecting the Union meant

protecting slavery and if CA was free, Southern states would leave Union

– Webster supported Clay, reasoning geography would prevent slavery from new territories (not suited for plantations)

• Main goal was to preserve Union

Compromise of 1850• Clay’s plan couldn’t pass as acomplete package; too muchdisagreement• When President Taylor died, new president Millard

Fillmore supported a compromise• Senator Stephen A. Douglas, divided plan into smaller

measures to be voted on separately– President persuaded several Whigs to abstain from voting so

that five measures were passed (containing Clay’s five main points) and laws were known as the Compromise of 1850

– President Fillmore believed these laws settled North/South conflict, but he couldn’t be more wrong…

1. Why do you think Henry Clay was called the “Great Compromiser”?

2. How did the Compromise of 1850 affect the New Mexico Territory? What role did California play in this?

3. List the provisions of the Missouri Compromise.4. Why did it matter if California entered as a slave state of

a free state?5. What was the Wilmot Proviso? Why was it controversial?