Richmond Examiner Editor in Chief
Westfield High School
Whig vs. Democrat; North vs. South
Certainly a controversial piece of legislation, the Compromise of 1850 and its individual components have generated strong reactions from both Whigs and Democrats, although the reactions from individuals within the parties seem inconsistent.
The Compromise of 1850 is a combination of bills intended to resolve tension related to sectionalism and slavery. These issues are partially related to the Mexican American War. The five main objectives were first combined into a single bill, but were later split due to lack of support in the United States Senate for each section. The five objectives are: to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia, but to keep slavery legal; to settle a boundaries dispute in Texas over claimed Mexican land, by giving Texas $10 million to pay off their debt in exchange for giving up the lands; to allow the organization of western territories, and let them use popular sovereignty during state formation to determine whether they would be free or slave states; to admit California as a free state; and to pass the Fugitive Slave Act, requiring citizens to help return runaway slaves.
The bill’s passage has really only become possible since the death of Whig President Zachary Taylor. Taylor’s Vice President Millard Fillmore has since supported the Compromise. Whig Henry Clay and Democrat Stephen Douglas have guided the bill. The packed bill’s success has also been increased by Douglas’s separation of each section into an individual bill.
As each region and ideological school has different positions on slavery and its expansion, it is logical that the political parties and their regional factions differ on the Compromise of 1850. First, members of the Whig Party greatly differed in support for the Compromise and its intentions. President Zachary Taylor supported popular sovereignty in New Mexico and California, thus conflicting with the Compromises section on admitting California as a free state. New York Senator William Seward, fierce abolitionist, leads the antislavery faction in the Senate, along with Free Soil Ohio Senator Salmon Chase; they oppose the compromise. Fillmore aligned with moderate Whigs, and in August of 1850 sent a message to Congress suggesting giving compensation to Texas, thus switching northern Whigs away from the Wilmot Proviso. The most recent version of the Wilmot Proviso says, “There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in any territory on the continent of America which shall hereafter be acquired by or annexed to the United States.” Northern Whigs opposed the Compromise because the Proviso would not be applied in western territories and because of the Fugitive Slave Act. Southern and Border State Whigs supported the Compromise because of the danger of losing slaves, leading to strong support for the Fugitive Slave Act.
The Democrats include supporters and opponents based on regional differences as well. Southerners led by Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi oppose the Compromise, as it would invalidate some of Texas’s claimed land. They also fear admission of California as a free state as it would upset Northern and Southern, or slave and free state balance. The Southern Senators also believed abolition of District of Columbia slave auctions to be unconstitutional. On the other hand, Northern Democrats supported the compromise.
The main strategy that seems to be apparent in passing the five separate bills is to sustain a Northern Democrat coalition in passing each, and adding a different majority, Whigs or Southern Democrats for each. Douglas and Clay are optimistic about the Compromise’s passage into law.
1 comment:
Chandani Patel
Richmond Exam.
Reporter, International Affairs
Mexican War
Manifest destiny was in the American air as we went to war with Mexico fighting for land. Mexico had gained independence from Spain three years ago and we had our eye on Alta California, New Mexico, and Texas. With the Mexican government bankrupt, they let Americans settle in Texas. The leader of the first American group to settle in Texas was Stephen F. Austin. Americans quickly formed the majority of the people in Texas. European countries were asking for cotton, which the Mexican government didn’t want. American Texans were southerners who owned slaves and Mexico had abolished slavery. Texas then declared independence. The Republic of Texas still has not been annexed.
However, there was an issue between the border of Mexico and Texas. Our President Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor in to Texas at the border, the Rio Grande, to provoke the Mexicans. In November, President Polk sent John Slidell to try to obtain the disputed territory by negotiating. Polk told Slidell to offer an agreement between Mexico and Texas to extend the border to the Rio Grande and then offer $30 million for the land. Mexico didn’t accept. Polk ordered Taylor to advance at the Rio Grande and with 50,000 troops, Taylor lead the way. Within a week the Mexican army was getting weak. The army was led and equipped poorly. Polk then put Winfield Scott in charge of offensive. With these two Generals, the country was lead to victory. Polk sent Nicholas P. Trist to accompany Scott to negotiate a treaty.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was completed in February. Mexico accepted Rio Grande boundary as the border of Texas and gave New Mexico and Upper Canada to the Untied States. The United States agreed to pay $15 million. The senate passes the agreement by a vote of 38 to 14. Now the new territories can give more land to the slave states.
Economics of Slavery
The importance of cotton in the South increased the need for slavery. Slaves are worth as much as $1800. Cotton fields of the South bring at least a hundred dollars per head. That is why selling slaves are more popular down the Mississippi River. Mississippi took 10,000 slaves a year. By 1830 the black populating exceeded the white. Slave trading is now a big business. The largest traders were Isaac Franklin and John Armfield. They each had half a million dollars before retiring.
In large plantations slave families are separated. The business of slave trade is very profitable. Blacks become more expensive and the ownership of slaves became more concentrated. Well-managed plantations make an annual profit of 10 percent or more. An average slave earned cotton worth $78.78. It costs masters $32 a year to feed, clothe and house a slave. New York capitalists control the cotton picked from the South. Many Southerner’s are complaining but are doing nothing to change it.
Without slavery, the expense to run a farm would be impossible. With the help of slaves southerners are helping the economy for the Untied States. Cotton is an important crop and many countries like Britain need it. By doing trade with the British, the economy for the country will prosper. The South is also helping the North by giving cotton to use at factories. Now that the industrial revolution has taken place, the demands for cotton has increased. Without slaves the job for picking cotton wouldn’t be done as fast as the demands. The price of cotton would go higher as the demand goes higher. With slaves, the South can keep up with the demands for cotton.
Source:
The American Nation by Mark C. Carnes. ( American History textbook)
Post a Comment