The Compromise of 1850 was a compromise proposed by Henry Clay regarding the future of slavery, especially in the territories acquired during the Mexican American War. This vital compromise delayed the Civil War for several years, and temporally extinguished the slavery issue. Despite the balance brought through the compromise neither North nor South was content with the compromise. Several speakers made speeches stating their opinions on the compromise, and their plan for the future of the country. Henry Clay’s speech on February 6, 1850, describes the great accomplishments of the United States and the necessity to resolve the territorial issue that threats to cause Civil War.
Slavery & Politics in the Early American Republic by Matthew Mason, gives a detailed analysis on the role slavery and slave representation played on sectionalism and politics in the Early American Republic. Mason writes about the growth in anti-slave efforts after the Quakers were the first and only organized anti-slave groups in colonial America. There had been no discontinuation in discussion about slavery from the revolution to the Civil War. Mason’s thesis states that the argument that the Missouri Crisis started the fight between the North and South on the issue of slavery. Mason believes that it started much longer before this with events like the American Revolution, the War of 1812, Constitutional Contentions, along with the Missouri
The north was becoming increasingly industrial whereas the south still relied on a primarily agrarian lifestyle. This growing shift caused northerners to regard slavery as necessary and even detrimental to their own interests. The Free Soil movement was one such group that was against slavery but for personal and not moral or religious reasons. David Wilmot, a prominent Free Soiler, made this clear in a speech to Congress. He said that did not feel any sympathy or moral obligation to the slave but was against slavery because of the threat it presented to white labor (doc H).
Defying Mexican legislature, citizens in the western and southern parts of the United States saw Texas as an economic miracle to sell slaves. In the soon to be, the Republic of Texas, ninety insurgents signed a Declaration of Independence from Mexico in 1836 (Summer, American Spirit). Texas became an independent nation after the battle of San Jacinto. The Republic of Texas remained an independent nation until 1845 when Texas was formally added to the United States of America. However, was the annexation of Texas justified?
The Democrats endorsed the “popular sovereignty” approach to slavery expansion that was used in the Kansas-Nebraska act. Their platform stated that new territories should decide themselves whether to be slave or free by popular vote; however, anti-slavery northerners feared that this result in the expansion of slavery further westward, a major fear of the Republican party. The Republican
This treaty not only ended the war, but formally acknowledged Texas as part of United States territory and allowed the U.S. to expand their boundaries further west. There are an endless amount of people who will argue the significance of the Mexican War. This war showed the strength of the American army. Although there were where the U.S. did not seem strong, they cannot argue with the fact that they gained the state Texas and expanded boundaries. Those accomplishments were not only major for the U.S. army, but for the people of the nation as well.
These events were mainly the causes of the Mexican War between Mexico and the United States, after which Mexico relinquished all demands and land to Texas and much of the present-day southwestern United States. For many years’ Mexico’s policies had rarely caused any trouble with Texas, however, a large part of the population was Anglo-American immigrants who were heavily pulled by the generous land policies. However, Mexico and Texas didn’t agree with the policies Mexico was trying to put together, thus leading to disagreement and violence. Which lead to the Texas Revolution, so in this research paper I will be discussing and arguing if this revolution was fought over independence from Mexico or abolishing slavery in Texas. Your Argument: Mexico was trying to succeed in abolish slavery in Texas, every time they were greeted with a negative response by Texians.
The abolitionist states outnumbered the slave states in the senate. The Compromise of 1850 was suggested and held off the civil war for 15 years. “Slavery first began in America when African slaves were brought to the U.S. American colony of Jamestown Virginia in 1619 to aid the production of crops such as
The Mexican government threatened the United States that if Texas entered the Union, it would result to break diplomatic relations with the United States. President James Polk was in favor of Texas entering the Union as a state, and signed the Texas Administration Act on December 29, 1845. Texas was made as a state on 1845, thus, Mexico broke off relations with the United States resulting the emergence of the Mexican-American War. President Polk declared war on Mexico, on June 1846 and sent troops to New Mexico and California under General Kearny. American forces expelled the Mexican army from parts of California, New Mexico, and Texas.
Since the dawn of time Texas has been a revolutionary place where many cultures manifested and changed. Latino Culture has obviously been a major influence on Texas overall, this can be taken from the name itself and other things. Not only does “Texas” derive from spanish origin, but the progress of Latin culture into America and the civil rights movement has gone a long way and truly made a foundation for Texas since the 1500s . The majority of latinos in Texas can trace their ancestry to the racial mixture that happened after the conquest of Mexico by Spain near the 1520s. When this happened there was a major increase of population due to the fact that many spanish males mixed with Indian females, beginning the mestizo race.