Between 1800 and 1850, western expansion played a major role in the sectional tensions between the North and South in America. Most of this would stem from whether or not new territory would be free or slave states. Later on, there would be compromises in place to alleviate the tension but disunity between the North and South was very prevalent. In 1803, the Louisiana Purchase from the French got a rise out of the New England Federalist party. They were against western expansion because they believed it would reduce power and the influence of the party and the northeastern states. This would spawn secessionist schemes from the vice president Aaron Burr. He had no interest in continuing to be part of the Union, openly discussing seceding from …show more content…
When Missouri applied for statehood in 1819, James Tallmadge of New York would only support the admission of this state if only new slaves were banned and if the current slaves of the area were freed. White inhabitants of the Missouri refused the offer and the House of Representatives would later on block the admission. The South were not pleased. They were unwilling to break their commitment to slavery and saw it was unfair that Missouri had be to upheld to conditions that other states were not. They even defended slavery by saying it was a “necessary evil” and that Christ himself gave sanction to slavery. They used their power in the Senate to prevent statehood from Maine which was trying to disjoint from Massachusetts. After years of debate, Henry Clay composed political agreements called the Missouri Compromise set to admit Maine (separating from Massachusetts) as a Free State in 1820 and Missouri as a Slave State in 1821. Also in the agreement accepted that slavery would be banned in future admissions to the Union above the Missouri Compromise line (N of latitude 36 30’) except Missouri. This compromise maintained a balance in the Senate between the North and South. During the Mexican-American war an antislavery Democratic congressmen named David Wilmot followed the sentiment that the power of slavery was aiming to govern the country and its laws. He in turn, proposed the Wilmot Proviso, which planned to ban
During 1800-1850 the united states experienced a period of sectionalism. Sectionalism The United states were divided into the northeast, south and the west. There were many different reasons for this division of the states. In my paper I will point out a few points from each section that caused the period of sectionalism. I will first start off by talking about the North.
Southern statesmen desired to hold the West and the South together as a single political party. The theory on which they based such hope was simple: they both produced raw materials and bought manufactured goods. The union of the two sections prior to further economic expansion seemed perfect. However, Northern statesmen were not blind to such interests and also recognized the importance of the formation of strong ties with the agrarian West and bringing their produce to the north. The development of canals and railways would cement this economic union, and the results were evident.
The Wilmot Proviso was proposed during the Mexican-American War. David Wilmot (a Democrat) submitted the Wilmot Proviso. The Proviso meant that if the United States won they would not turn the Mexican people who were on the land into slaves. This passed through the House of Representatives (based on population), but not the Senate (equal number of reps from slave and free states). In order for the Wilmot Proviso to be passed it needed at least two thirds of the Senate, (did not happen).
Another reason was The Wilmot Proviso,In August 1846, Representative David Wilmot, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, proposed an expansion to a war appropriations bill. His revision, known as the Wilmot Proviso, recommended that in any region the United States picked up from Mexico “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist.” It was progressively understood that the Mexican individuals were against servitude and that the area was unsatisfactory for its spread, and in this manner the domain taken from it would be a free region upon its alliance into the Union. The annexation however contributed another conflict that sparked a division between who are with or against the annexation of northern mexico, because the extra land acquired from the northern mexico will be added to the union as a free state rather than a slave state which will consequently increase the number and power of free states over the slave states. Driven by Senator John C. Calhoun, the position of the anti-annexation powers was established in two primary convictions: that extension would aggravate sectionalism to at the expense of the Union, and that the force of the South would be extraordinarily decreased by the addition of
P.6 Compromises seemed to be working in 1820 as a solution to political issues that America agreed to disagreed on. As seen in the Missouri Compromise, where Henry Clay made slaves free in twelve states and not free in the other twelve; in order to keep everything balanced. But between the period of 1820 to 1860, compromising took a shift and no longer seemed to be the solution. Compromises worked with Henry Clay in the Missouri compromise in 1820 but by 1860 due to a series of geographic, political, and social changes compromises were impossible.
Much of the disagreement between the north and south was caused by the status of slavery, particularly what would happen in expansion states. The northern states wanted to eliminate slavery from new states, and ideally they wanted no slavery in the country in general. On the other hand, southern states believed that slavery should expand with the country. For example, a man from Georgia argued that new territory should be able to have the choice as to whether or not they will have slavery. But the north, however, “insists that while the territory was partly acquired by Southern men, is partly owned by Southern men, that they shall be excluded from its soil”(Document B).
Missourians then began to flood Kansas, resulting in a pro-slavery majority in the territory legislature, resulting in Kansas becoming a legalized slave state. This outraged the Free states and caused them to elect their own delegates to the constitution convention in Topeka. They tried to petition congress for statehood, and President Pierce denounced the Free State group. Pierce also sights them as traitors, showing he is backing pro slavery territorial legislature. When this happened the pro slavery marshal assembled a large posse to arrest them.
Decisions made in the 1850s ultimately decided the United States fate. From the election of 1856 to the Dred Scott case, the nation would become divided into two. The South was pro-slavery and supported the idea of slavery expanded into western territories, while the North opposed of the idea and was mainly against expanding slavery. Until the 1850s the nation barely balanced the slavery issue.
In an attempt to improve the situation, Northern congressmen were quick to bring up that many of the South's most respected statesmen, either Thomas Jefferson, had often expressed a desire to find any solution of perpetuating slavery. So far now the South presented a virtually solid opposition and Thomas Jefferson joined their campaign which were required to force manumission upon a new state. Many days of arguments in the congress debates between the Northern and Southern congressmen about the Missouri controversy and the way headed the sessions were portending that the next era will initiate to a recurring sectional no way. Later on, this arguments will be a main and important reason in the civil war
Due to the fact that the South had more of an agricultural economy, the Southerners thought that the states should have the right to decide whether residents could own slaves, rather than the federal government. In 1846 a congressman from Pennsylvania named David Wilmot introduced a bill to the House of Representatives called the Wilmot Proviso. This said slavery would not be allowed in any western territory acquired from Mexico. Of course most of the politicians from the North loved the idea, while the politicians from the South did not. The Missouri Compromise on March 3, 1820 (also called the Compromise of 1820) was the first major legislative compromise that was passed to draw a line between slave and free territory.
The Westward Expansion all started when America made the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. There were many benefits from the purchase for the US that the French didn’t realize before they sold it. The purchase gave the US access to the Mississippi river which allowed for expansion of river trade to the North and South from the center of the US. The port city of New Orleans was bought by the US and its prosperity benefited the US greatly. The US sent Lewis and Clark west to investigate the land they purchased.
The issue the compromise was about was whether there should be slavery in the western territories. Maine wanted to be added to the Union, however, slavery was banned there. If Maine were to be added to the Union, it would upset the balance between free and slave states in the nation and the Senate. So, the Missouri Compromise, proposed by Senator Henry Clay, allowed Maine to enter the Union as a free state, and allowed Missouri to be entered into the Union as a slave state.
Many delegates from the Northern states considered slavery evil and denounced it as a repugnant institution. The South on the other hand, argued that slavery was an economic reality and necessity. As Charles Cotesworth Pinckney so aptly put it, “While there remained one acre of swamp-land uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise my voice against restricting the importation of negroes. I am . . . thoroughly convinced . . .
The Missouri Compromise was made as an attempt to deal with the debate that had been going on about slavery. It lasted thirty-four years, but never truly made the North orouth totally happy with the situation. Although the Missouri Compromise did push back the debate on slavery in Missouri, it did not solve the problem as a whole. The tension between the North and South was, in fact reduced for a period of time. Once the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional, the tension once again grew.