Transcript The 1850 Sectional Crisis

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.