The 1850 Sectional Crisis

Causes and compromise

Problems causing the crisis

3 main areas for

consideration

New territory acquired;

Slave or free?

Southern “fire eaters” threatening secession

Northern“free soilers” Increasingly

hard line

New territories Heated debate about whether slavery

should be extended to the newly acquired western territories; California New Mexico (Nevada and Utah also)

“free soilers” opposed slavery’s advocates Wanted land available for free whites.

The Wilmot Proviso David Wilmot is a “free soiler” who

wanted northern whites to benefit from new terrirtories.

His proviso was part of a finance bill for the Mexican- American war.

House of Representatives passed this bill- 83 YES 64 NO.

The Senate prevent this becoming law; To preserve slavery To preserve the Union

Southern politicians Robert Toombs objected to

halting the spread of slavery into the territories of California and New Mexico

Influential in the South

John Calhoun Calhoun supported

states' rights and nullification, under which states could declare null and void federal laws which they deemed to be unconstitutional.

He famously defended slavery as a "positive good" rather than as a "necessary evil".

The Nashville Convention

slaveholding states agreed to send delegates to Nashville to define a resistance strategy to the Wilmot Proviso.

It appeared as if, with Calhoun at their head, secession was a possibility.

Calhoun accused the north of upsetting the equilibrium established by the Missouri Compromise.

Northern “free soilers” David Wilmot William Seward- an

abolitionist influenced the President (Taylor)

Northerners represented a coalition of free soilers and abolitionists against slavery’s spread.

Result- sectional tension

Increased threats of secession from the South.

Actual violence between politicians. An atmosphere of mutual distrust. An increasing polarisation,

especially among Democrats, on sectional lines.

How was a Compromise found?

A few issues to consider

New territories Henry Clay’s proposals;

California to be a free state- appeased northerners upset about the Mexican War having a pro south agenda.

Decisions on other new territories effectively delayed (Clay believed new territories weren’t suitable for slavery), but New Mexico/Utah to have no restrictions.

Territorial dispute between Texas and New Mexico settled

Southern Politicians Calhoun attacked the Compromise,

predicting "the balance between the two sections" was destroyed would be a day not far removed from disunion, anarchy, and civil war.

Calhoun died in Washington, D.C. in March 1850 of tuberculosis, at the age of 67.

"The Union; second to our liberty most dear!", "Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!" JCC

Daniel Webster Daniel Webster was a respected, elder

politician who wanted to preserve the Union

On March 7, 1850, Webster gave one of his most famous speeches, characterizing himself "not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man but as an American..." In it he gave his support to the 1850 compromise.

Northern Free Soilers Effectively appeased by the admission

of California. Backed off from precipitating secession. Hoped that new territories would not be

fruitful for slavery- turned out to be a false hope.

Zachary Taylor died; his successor Millard Fillmore advocated compromise.

Stephen Douglas The “Little Giant”

broke down the proposals.

He passed the proposals as a part of separate bills.

Therefore, Douglas, an ambitious businessman and politician, was instrumental.

Why was Compromise found in 1850? Southern State Conventions, e.g. at

Nashville were guided by moderates. Some States didn’t even send members.

Experienced and loyal politicians; Webster, Clay and even Calhoun were at heart Unionists.

Douglas skilfully got the proposals passed.

Free Soilers hoped new territories were unsuitable for plantation/slave labour.

There is a debate about 1850 The 1850

Compromise saved the Union;

It appeased the “fire eaters”.

It solved the problem of the new territories.

It appealed to Union sentiment.

It satisfied free soilers.

The 1850 Compromise was the beginning of the end for the Union;

It created resentment about the strict Fugitive Slave Law, in the north.

It did not satisfy southern slaveholders.

It diluted the Missouri Compromise of 1820. (no slavery above 36° 30.)

Footnote A likely essay title might be something

like; “Why was there a compromise found in

1850, but not in 1860?” You need to be able to compare events

around 1850, with those surrounding 1860.

You need to understand how the crisis deepened 1850-1860.