Road to Civil War
Slavery and the West:
Chapter 12, Section 2
Differences in economic, political, and social beliefs and
practices can lead to division within a nation and have
lasting consequences. The question of whether to
admit new states as free states or slave states arose.
Missouri Compromise
• Main idea: The Missouri Compromise helped
resolve the issue of whether new states would be
slave states or free states.
Sectionalism - exaggerated loyalty to a region
• 1819, Missouri requested to join Union, creating a
problem/angry debate, worried Jefferson and J.Q.Adams
(debate seen as “a mere preamble to a great tragic
volume”
– Missouri = slaveholding / territory 5:1 whites to slaves, with
a constitution that allowed slavery
• 1819, 11 states permitted slaves, and 11 did not
– 2 members from each state in Senate, meant the Union was
evenly balanced
– A new state would upset that balance
• North and South argued over other issues too…
– Different economic systems (industry vs. rural farms)
– New land in western territories
– Restrictions/bans on slavery
Clay’s Proposal
• Senate suggested way to resolve crisis,
skillfully maneuvered passage by Speaker
of the House Henry Clay of KY
• Suggested the Missouri Compromise
– Preserving the balance of slave states
and free states. Quieting debate…for now
• Result?
– Missouri admitted as slave state while
Maine was also admitted into Union as a
free state
– Slavery prohibited in remainder of
Louisiana Purchase north of 36/30 N
1. What bigger issue was Adams predicting when he called
the debate over Missouri a “mere preamble”?
2. How did sectionalism contribute to the ongoing debate
about the admission of states?
3. What forms does sectionalism take today?
Nullification
• Main idea: The Kentucky Resolution first advanced the
doctrine of nullification.
• Southerners argues that states could nullify federal
laws that were considered unconstitutional…an issue
that would not be resolved quickly
Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions
• 1798-99, nullification first expressed at Virginia and
Kentucky Resolutions and written by Jefferson and
Madison
– Declared Federalists’ (past) Alien and Sedition Acts
unconstitutional
• Used 10th amendment to argue
– Federal government formed by contract with states
– Federal government had limited power
– So if federal government passes law going beyond their
powers, state had right to nullify
Hartford Convention
• Issue of nullification reappeared during War of 1812
among Federalists of New England who opposed war
– Angry over war’s influence on trade/economy
– Believed war was brought on by Republicans in
South and West
• Delegates from New England revived idea of
nullification and proposed amendments to Constitution
– No progress made from their demands, and by the
end of the war their party had declined
Tariff Controversy
• Nullification popped up AGAIN in 1820-30s over
protective tariffs
– Raised prices on goods from overseas
– Made American products cheaper
• Southerners at this time were convinced that all tariffs
were harmful to their way of life
– Only helping industries in the North
– Raised prices on manufactured goods purchased in the South
• Felt unjust for them to bear the expense for development in another
part of the country if it made things harder on their part of it
Ordinance of Nullification
• 1828, tariff was passed, John C. Calhoun mad
– As a Southerner he considered it “unconstitutional,
oppressive, and unjust”
– Based argument on Jefferson/Madison in Virginia/Kentucky
resolutions and questioned supremacy of national gov. vs.
state sovereignty
• 1832, new tariff law passed
– Lowered tax rates (but not enough to some)
• S.C. called for convention to vote on Ordinance of
Nullification against new tariff raising important
question
– If states were sovereign they had a right to secede from
Union..?
States and Nullification
• 1830, Calhoun’s nullification doctrine went to the Senate
angering people in West
– Thought bill could limit sale of western lands
– Senator Robert Y. Hayne said western states could nullify the bill if
it became a law
– Daniel Webster replied, arguing that the Constitution was more
than a compact between states to be interpreted as each state
saw necessary
– Only the Supreme Court had the right to deem laws
unconstitutional
– Attempts to undermine the government and Constitution should
be seen as treason
• 1833, nullification crisis temporarily halted
– Compromise: tariff lowered, Ordinance of Nullification withdrawn
1. How did Webster’s view of the Constitution differ from
Calhoun’s?
2. Why did the South and the Northeast try to use
nullification?
New Western Lands
• Main idea: In the 1840s, the issue of slavery in new territories
was once again at the forefront.
• Gov. able to avoid slavery for a few years, brought back to
Congress over dispute of slavery in new territories (TX,CA,NM)
– Southerners wanted these new territories, where slavery existed,
or could exist
Conflicting Views
• During war with Mexico, Wilmot Proviso
introduced to Congress
– Specified that slavery should be prohibited
in any lands that might be acquired from
Mexico
• South wasn’t happy about that
– Wanted to keep the possibility of introducing slavery to CA/NM
– Calhoun offered another proposal, stating neither Congress or
gov. can put bans on territories (not states) in regards to slavery
• Neither proposal passed, just caused bitter debate
• In the meantime, new territories had been acquired, but no
resolution to issue of slavery in those new places
Free-Soil Party
• Slavery debate led to new political party
– Neither Whigs nor Democrats took a stand on slavery
(afraid of losing votes)
– Failure to take a stand lost them votes anyway, voters
were angry about it
• Antislavery Whigs & Democrats left parties to join
with Liberty Party to form Free-Soil Party
– “Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, Free Men”
• Whig candidate, Zachary Taylor, won election, while
Free-Soil candidate, former president Van Buren,
failed to receive an electoral vote. But several party
members won seats in Congress
1. Why did the United States not annex Texas in 1836?
2. What area to the north of California and New Mexico,
which could be turned into free states, was also added to
the United States around this time?
3. How did the acquisition of new territory heighten the
sectional tensions over slavery?
4. Why did the new antislavery party call itself the “Free
Soil” Party?
5. How was John C. Calhoun’s proposal different from the
Wilmot Proviso?
The Search for Compromise
• Main idea: Henry Clay presented a plan to settle the slavery
debate that resulted in the Compromise of 1850.
• President Taylor urged CA/NM to apply for statehood, said
their citizens could decide whether to allow slaves or not
– CA applied, which took a backseat to other problems going
on in Congress:
• Antislavery movement in DC, Southerners “fugitive law”,
Texas-Mexico border dispute
– CA would upset balance of free/slave states that were equal
at 15 states each
• It appeared the CA, NM, OR, and UT would enter as free states
and South would always be outvoted
• Southerners began talking about secession
Debate Begins
• 1850, Senator Henry Clay presents
a plan to settle division in Congress
– 1) CA would be admitted as free state
– 2) NM would have no restrictions on slavery
– 3) New Texas-Mexico border dispute would be settled in
favor of NM
– 4) Slave trade (NOT slavery) would be abolished in DC
– 5) Stronger fugitive slave law
• Debate lasted for 7 months!
– Calhoun argued that protecting the Union meant
protecting slavery and if CA was free, Southern states
would leave Union
– Webster supported Clay, reasoning geography would
prevent slavery from new territories (not suited for
plantations)
• Main goal was to preserve Union
Compromise of 1850
• Clay’s plan couldn’t pass as a
complete package; too much
disagreement
• When President Taylor died, new president Millard
Fillmore supported a compromise
• Senator Stephen A. Douglas, divided plan into smaller
measures to be voted on separately
– President persuaded several Whigs to abstain from voting so
that five measures were passed (containing Clay’s five main
points) and laws were known as the Compromise of 1850
– President Fillmore believed these laws settled North/South
conflict, but he couldn’t be more wrong…
1. Why do you think Henry Clay was called the “Great
Compromiser”?
2. How did the Compromise of 1850 affect the New Mexico
Territory? What role did California play in this?
3. List the provisions of the Missouri Compromise.
4. Why did it matter if California entered as a slave state of
a free state?
5. What was the Wilmot Proviso? Why was it controversial?