Home  ›  what compromise resulted in the admission of california to the union as a free state?

what compromise resulted in the admission of california to the union as a free state?

Written By Thursday, 7 April 2022 Add Comment Edit

American political compromise

The United States later the Compromise of 1850

The Compromise of 1850 was a packet of five separate bills passed by the United States Congress in September 1850 that defused a political confrontation between slave and free states on the status of territories acquired in the Mexican–American War. It also fix Texas'due south western and northern borders and included provisions addressing fugitive slaves and the slave merchandise. The compromise was brokered by Whig senator Henry Clay and Democratic senator Stephen A. Douglas, with the support of President Millard Fillmore.

A debate over slavery in the territories had erupted during the Mexican–American War, as many Southerners sought to expand slavery to the newly-acquired lands and many Northerners opposed any such expansion. The debate was further complicated by Texas's claim to all quondam Mexican territory north and eastward of the Rio Grande, including areas it had never effectively controlled. These issues prevented the passage of organic acts to create organized territorial governments for the land acquired in the Mexican–American War. In early 1850, Clay proposed a package of eight bills that would settle most of the pressing issues earlier Congress. Clay's proposal was opposed by President Zachary Taylor, anti-slavery Whigs like William Seward, and pro-slavery Democrats like John C. Calhoun, and congressional debate over the territories connected. The debates over the bill were the most famous in Congressional history, and the divisions devolved into fistfights and drawn guns on the floor of Congress.

Subsequently Taylor died and was succeeded by Fillmore, Douglas took the lead in passing Clay's compromise through Congress as v dissever bills. Under the compromise, Texas surrendered its claims to present-day New Mexico and other states in return for federal assumption of Texas's public debt. California was admitted every bit a gratis land, while the remaining portions of the Mexican Cession were organized into New United mexican states Territory and Utah Territory. Under the concept of pop sovereignty, the people of each territory would determine whether or not slavery would exist permitted. The compromise also included a more stringent Fugitive Slave Constabulary and banned the slave trade in Washington, D.C. The issue of slavery in the territories would exist re-opened by the Kansas–Nebraska Act, but the Compromise of 1850 played a major function in postponing the American Civil War.

Background [edit]

 Gratis states in early 1850 (note that Virginia and W Virginia had not however carve up in 1850)

 Slave states (without Texas's claims to New Mexico)

The Republic of Texas declared its independence from Mexico following the Texas Revolution of 1836, and, partly because Texas had been settled past a large number of Americans, there was a strong sentiment in both Texas and the United states of america for the looting of Texas by the Usa.[one] In December 1845, President James Chiliad. Polk signed a resolution annexing Texas, and Texas became the 28th state in the spousal relationship.[2] Polk sought further expansion through the conquering of the Mexican province of Alta California, which represented new lands to settle equally well as a potential gateway to trade in Asia.[3] His administration attempted to purchase California from Mexico,[four] but the annexation of Texas stoked tensions between Mexico and the United states of america.[5] Relations between the two countries were further complicated past Texas'southward claim to all land north of the Rio Grande; United mexican states argued that the more northern Nueces River was the proper Texan edge.[6]

In March 1846, a skirmish broke out on the northern side of the Rio Grande, ending in the decease or capture of dozens of American soldiers.[7] Shortly thereafter, the United States alleged state of war on United mexican states, beginning the Mexican–American War.[8] In August 1846, Polk asked Congress for an cribbing that he hoped to use as a down payment for the purchase of California in a treaty with United mexican states, igniting a fence over the status of future territories.[9] A freshman Democratic Congressman, David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, offered an amendment known every bit the Wilmot Proviso that would ban slavery in any newly caused lands.[10] The Wilmot Proviso was defeated in the Senate, but it injected the slavery fence into national politics.[11]

In September 1847, an American regular army under Full general Winfield Scott captured the Mexican uppercase in the Battle for Mexico Urban center.[12] Several months subsequently, Mexican and American negotiators agreed to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, nether which Mexico agreed to recognize the Rio Grande equally Texas'southward southern border and to cede Alta California and New Mexico.[13] The Missouri Compromise had settled the upshot of the geographic accomplish of slavery within the Louisiana Purchase territories past prohibiting slavery in states due north of 36°30′ latitude, and Polk sought to extend this line into the newly acquired territory.[fourteen] Notwithstanding, the divisive issue of slavery blocked whatsoever such legislation. As his term came to a close, Polk signed the lone territorial bill passed by Congress, which established the Territory of Oregon and banned slavery in it.[15] Polk declined to seek re-election in the 1848 presidential election,[xvi] and the 1848 election was won past the Whig ticket of Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore.[17]

Prophetically, Ralph Waldo Emerson quipped that "Mexico will poisonous substance u.s.", referring to the ensuing divisions around whether the newly conquered lands would exist slave or costless.[18] As of the 1848 election of Taylor, the effect was not withal apparent. Taylor was both a Whig and a slaveholder; though Whigs were increasingly anti-slavery, Taylor's slaveholding had reassured the Southward, and he won handily. Taylor made a key electoral promise that he would non veto any congressional resolution on slavery. Much to the horror of Southerners, however, Taylor indicated that true to his promise, he would not even veto the Wilmot Proviso if information technology were passed. Tensions accelerated apace into the fall of 1849. Midterm elections worsened matters, as the Costless Soil Party had gained 12 seats, which gave them a king-maker position in the closely divided Business firm: 105 Whigs to 112 Democrats. After 3 weeks and 62 ballots, the House could not elect a speaker; the main issue was slavery in the new territories. The tumult of that menstruation was severe, with a loaded revolver drawn on the floor of Congress, several fistfights betwixt Northerners and Southerners, and so Senator Jefferson Davis challenging an Illinois congressman to a duel. Southern congressmen increasingly bandied around the idea of secession. Finally, the Firm adopted a resolution that allowed a speaker to be elected with a plurality, and elected Howell Cobb on the 63rd ballot. As James McPherson puts it: "It was an inauspicious kickoff to the 1850's."[xix]

Issues [edit]

Three major types of problems were addressed past the Compromise of 1850: a variety of purlieus bug, the status of territory bug, and the effect of slavery. While capable of belittling distinction, the purlieus and territory issues were included in the overarching issue of slavery. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery interests were each concerned with both the corporeality of state on which slavery was permitted and with the number of States in the slave or costless camps. Since Texas was a slave land, non only the residents of that country but also both camps on a national scale had an interest in the size of Texas.

Texas [edit]

Proposals for Texas's northwestern boundary

The contained Republic of Texas won the decisive Boxing of San Jacinto (April 21, 1836) against Mexico and captured Mexican president Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. He signed the Treaties of Velasco, which recognized the Rio Grande every bit the boundary of the Republic of Texas. The treaties were then repudiated by the government of Mexico, which insisted that Mexico remained sovereign over Texas since Santa Anna had signed the treaty under coercion, and promised to reclaim the lost territories. To the extent that there was a de facto recognition, Mexico treated the Nueces River equally its northern boundary control. A vast, largely-unsettled area lay between the two rivers. Neither Mexico nor the Republic of Texas had the armed services strength to affirm its territorial merits. On December 29, 1845, the Republic of Texas was annexed to the United States and became the 28th state. Texas was staunchly committed to slavery, with its constitution making it illegal for the legislature to free slaves.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo fabricated no mention of the claims of the Democracy of Texas; United mexican states simply agreed to a Mexico–United states of america border southward of both the "Mexican Cession" and the Republic of Texas claims.[20] After the end of the Mexican–American State of war, Texas connected to merits a big stretch of disputed land that it had never effectively controlled in present-day eastern New Mexico. New United mexican states had long prohibited slavery, a fact that affected the contend over its territorial status, but many New Mexican leaders opposed joining Texas primarily because Texas's upper-case letter lay hundreds of miles abroad[21] and because Texas and New Mexico had a history of conflict dating back to the 1841 Santa Iron Expedition.[22] Outside of Texas, many Southern leaders supported Texas'south claims to New Mexico to secure as much territory as possible for the expansion of slavery.[23]

Another issue that would affect the compromise was Texas'southward debt; it had approximately $10 meg in debt left over from its time as an independent nation, and that debt would go a factor in the debates over the territories.[24]

California [edit]

Map of Mexico. S. Augustus Mitchell, Philadelphia, 1847. New California is depicted with a northeastern border at the peak leading north of the Rio Grande headwaters.

California was part of the Mexican Cession. After the Mexican State of war, California was essentially run by war machine governors. President James K. Polk tried to go Congress to establish a territorial authorities in California officially, merely the increasingly sectional debates prevented that.[25] The Due south wanted to extend slave territory to Southern California and to the Pacific Coast, but the Due north did non. The event of whether it would be gratis or slave might well have gone undecided for years, as it had already subsequently the end of the Mexican American war, if not for the finding of natural riches.[26]

Near the end of Polk's term in 1848, incredible news reached Washington: gilded had been discovered in California. Then began the California Gold Rush, which transformed California from a sleepy and near forgotten land into a burgeoning hub with a population bigger than Delaware or Florida. The by and large lawless land plant itself in desperate need of governance. Californians wanted to exist made into a territory or state promptly.[27] In response to growing demand for a better more representative government, a Ramble Convention was held in 1849. The delegates unanimously outlawed slavery. They had no involvement in extending the Missouri Compromise Line through California and splitting the country; the lightly populated southern half never had slavery and was heavily Hispanic.[28] The issue of California would play a central function in the exhausting 1849 speaker dispute.[29]

Other bug [edit]

Aside from the disposition of the territories, other issues had risen to prominence during the Taylor years.[30] The Washington, D.C. slave trade angered many in the Northward, who viewed the presence of slavery in the capital every bit a blotch on the nation. Disputes around fugitive slaves had grown since 1830 in role due to improving means of transportation, as the enslaved used roads, railroads, and ships to escape. The Fugitive Slave Human action of 1793 had granted jurisdiction to all country and federal judges over cases regarding avoiding slaves, just several Northern states, dissatisfied by the lack of due process in these cases, had passed personal liberty laws that fabricated it more than difficult to return alleged avoiding slaves to the South.[31] Congress besides faced the issue of Utah, which like California and New Mexico, had been ceded by Mexico. Utah was inhabited largely by Mormons, whose practice of polygamy was unpopular in the The states.[32]

Passage [edit]

Taylor takes office [edit]

When Taylor took function, the consequence of slavery in the Mexican Cession remained unresolved. While a Southern slaveowner himself, Taylor believed that slavery was economically infeasible in the Mexican Cession, and as such he opposed slavery in those territories equally a needless source of controversy.[33] In Taylor'due south view, the best mode forward was to acknowledge California every bit a state rather than a federal territory, equally it would get out the slavery question out of Congress's hands. The timing for statehood was in Taylor'due south favor, as the Gold Rush was well underway at the fourth dimension of his inauguration, and California'south population was exploding.[34] In Oct 1849, a California constitutional convention unanimously agreed to join the Marriage—and to ban slavery within their borders.[35] In his December 1849 Country of the Union report, Taylor endorsed California's and New Mexico's applications for statehood, and recommended that Congress corroborate them every bit written and "should abstain from the introduction of those exciting topics of a sectional character".[36]

Main figures [edit]

The problem of what to do with the territories became the leading outcome in Congress. So began the about famous debates in the history of Congress. At the head were the three titans of Congress: Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun. All had been born during the American Revolution, and had carried the torch of the Founding Fathers. This represented their last and greatest act in politics. The nationalist Clay and Webster sought compromise, while Southern sectionalist Calhoun warned of imminent disaster. The triumvirate would be cleaved earlier long equally Calhoun would die of tuberculosis. In March, shortly earlier his decease, his final speech was delivered by his friend the Virginia Senator James K. Mason, as the blanket-wrapped Calhoun sat nearby, likewise weak to practice information technology himself. He provided a prescient warning that the South perceived the balance between North and S as broken, and that whatever farther imbalance might lead to war. The situation was severe.[37]

Other players included a variety of ascension politicians who would play fundamental roles in the Civil War, such as the staunch anti-slavery William H. Seward and Salmon P. Chase, who would exist in Lincoln'south chiffonier; the hereafter president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis; and rival to Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas.[37]

Clay proposes compromise [edit]

On Jan 29, 1850, Senator Henry Clay introduced a programme which combined the major subjects nether discussion. His legislative package of eight bills included the admission of California as a free state, the cession by Texas of some of its northern and western territorial claims in return for debt relief, the institution of New Mexico and Utah territories, a ban on the importation of slaves into the District of Columbia for auction, and a more than stringent avoiding slave law.[38] [37] Clay had originally favored voting on each of his proposals separately, just Senator Henry South. Foote of Mississippi convinced him to combine the proposals regarding California's access and the disposition of Texas's borders into 1 bill.[39] Clay hoped that this combination of measures would convince congressmen from both North and Southward to support the overall package of laws fifty-fifty if they objected to specific provisions.[xl] Clay'due south proposal attracted the support of some Northern Democrats and Southern Whigs, merely information technology lacked the backing necessary to win passage, and debate over the bill continued.[40] Seven months of agonizing politicking lay ahead.[37]

Opposition [edit]

President Taylor opposed the compromise and continued to telephone call for immediate statehood for both California and New Mexico.[xl] Senator Calhoun and some other Southern leaders argued that the compromise was biased against the Due south because information technology would pb to the creation of new free states.[41] Well-nigh Northern Whigs, led by William Henry Seward, who delivered his famous "Higher Constabulary" speech during the controversy, opposed the Compromise every bit well because it would use the Wilmot Proviso to the western territories and because of the pressing of ordinary citizens into duty on slave-hunting patrols. That provision was inserted past Democratic Virginia Senator James Yard. Mason to entice border-state Whigs, who faced the greatest danger of losing slaves as fugitives but were lukewarm on general exclusive issues related to the South on Texas'due south country claims.[42]

Debate and results [edit]

On April 17, a "Commission of 13" agreed on the border of Texas as part of Clay's plan. The dimensions were later inverse. That aforementioned day, during debates on the measures in the Senate, Vice President Fillmore and Senator Benton verbally sparred, with Fillmore charging that the Missourian was "out of order." During the heated debates, Compromise floor leader Henry Southward. Foote of Mississippi drew a pistol on Benton.

In early on June, 9 slaveholding Southern states sent delegates to the Nashville Convention to decide their grade of activity if the compromise passed. While some delegates preached secession, the moderates ruled and proposed a serial of compromises, including extending the dividing line designated by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to the Pacific Declension.

Taylor died in July 1850, and was succeeded by Vice President Fillmore, who had privately come to support Clay's proposal.[43] The diverse bills were initially combined into 1 "omnibus" bill. Despite Dirt'south efforts, it failed in a crucial vote on July 31, opposed by southern Democrats and by northern Whigs. He announced on the Senate flooring the side by side day that he intended to pass each part of the bill. The 73-yr-old Clay, yet, was physically exhausted as the effects of tuberculosis, which would eventually kill him, began to accept their price. Clay left the Senate to recuperate in Newport, Rhode Island, and Senator Stephen A. Douglas took the atomic number 82 in attempting to pass Clay's proposals through the Senate.[44]

Fillmore, anxious to find a quick solution to the conflict in Texas over the edge with New Mexico, which threatened to get an armed disharmonize between Texas militia and the federal soldiers, reversed the assistants'due south position belatedly in July and threw its support to the compromise measures.[45] At the same time, Fillmore denied Texas's claims to New United mexican states, asserting that the The states had promised to protect the territorial integrity of New Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.[46] Fillmore'southward forceful response helped convince Texas's U.Due south. Senators, Sam Houston and Thomas Jefferson Rusk, to support Stephen Douglas's compromise. With their support, a Senate nib providing for a terminal settlement of Texas'south borders won passage days after Fillmore delivered his message. Under the terms of the beak, the U.S. would assume Texas's debts, while Texas's northern border was set at the 36° thirty' parallel n (the Missouri Compromise line) and much of its western border followed the 103rd meridian. The nib attracted the support of a bipartisan coalition of Whigs and Democrats from both sections, though almost opposition to the bill came from the South.[47] The Senate quickly moved on to the other major issues, passing bills that provided for the admission of California, the system of New United mexican states Territory, and the establishment of a new fugitive slave law.[48]

The contend so moved to the Business firm of Representatives, where Fillmore, Senator Daniel Webster, Douglas, Congressman Linn Boyd, and Speaker of the House Howell Cobb took the lead in disarming members to support the compromise bills that had been passed in the Senate.[49] The Senate's proposed settlement of the Texas-New Mexico boundary faced intense opposition from many Southerners, also every bit from some Northerners who believed that Texas did not deserve monetary compensation. After a series of close votes that nearly delayed consideration of the issue, the House voted to corroborate a Texas neb like to that which had been passed by the Senate.[fifty] Following that vote, the Firm and the Senate quickly agreed on each of the major problems, including the banning of the slave merchandise in Washington.[51] The president quickly signed each bill into police salve for the Avoiding Slave Act of 1850; he ultimately signed that police likewise later on Attorney Full general Crittenden assured him that the law was ramble.[52] Though some in Texas nevertheless favored sending a armed forces expedition into New United mexican states, in November 1850 the country legislature voted to accept the compromise.[53]

Provisions [edit]

Settlement of borders [edit]

The Utah Territory is shown in bluish and outlined in black. The boundaries of the provisional State of Deseret are shown with a dotted line.

The general solution that was adopted by the Compromise of 1850 was to transfer a considerable part of the territory claimed by Texas country to the federal government; to organize two new territories formally, the Territory of New United mexican states and the Territory of Utah, which expressly would be allowed to locally decide whether they would become slave or gratuitous territories, to add another free land to the Matrimony (California), to adopt a astringent measure to recover slaves who had escaped to a free state or free territory (the Fugitive Slave Constabulary); and to abolish the slave merchandise in the District of Columbia. A key provision of each of the laws respectively organizing the Territory of New Mexico and the Territory of Utah was that slavery would be decided by local option, called popular sovereignty. That was an important repudiation of the idea behind the failure to prohibit slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico. Nonetheless, the admission of California every bit a free state meant that Southerners were giving upwards their goal of a coast-to-coast chugalug of slave states.[54]

Texas was allowed to go on the following portions of the disputed state: southward of the 32nd parallel and south of the 36°30' parallel north and east of the 103rd acme w. The rest of the disputed land was transferred to the Federal Government. The United States Constitution (Article Iv, Section iii) does not permit Congress unilaterally to reduce the territory of any state, then the commencement role of the Compromise of 1850 had to take the form of an offering to the Texas State Legislature, rather than a unilateral enactment. This ratified the bargain and, in due course, the transfer of a wide swath of land from the state of Texas to the federal authorities was achieved. In return for giving up this land, the United States assumed the debts of Texas.

From the Mexican Cession, the New Mexico Territory received almost of the present-solar day state of Arizona, most of the western part of the present-twenty-four hour period state of New Mexico, and the southern tip of present-day Nevada (s of the 37th parallel). The territory also received almost of present-day eastern New Mexico, a portion of present-day Colorado (due east of the crest of the Rocky Mountains, west of the 103rd meridian, and south of the 38th parallel); all of this state had been claimed by Texas.

From the Mexican Cession, the Utah Territory received present-day Utah, most of present-twenty-four hour period Nevada (everything n of the 37th parallel), a major part of present-24-hour interval Colorado (everything westward of the crest of the Rocky Mountains), and a minor part of present-day Wyoming. That included the newly-founded colony at Salt Lake, of Brigham Immature. The Utah Territory also received some state that had been claimed past Texas; this land is now part of present-twenty-four hours Colorado that is east of the crest of the Rocky Mountains.

Avoiding Slave Act [edit]

Perhaps the near important function of the Compromise received the to the lowest degree attention during debates. Enacted September 18, 1850, information technology is informally known as the Avoiding Slave Police force, or the Fugitive Slave Human activity. It bolstered the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. The new version of the Fugitive Slave Constabulary now required federal judicial officials in all states and federal territories, including free states, to assist with the return of escaped slaves to their masters in slave states. Any federal align or other official who did not arrest an declared runaway slave was liable to a fine of $1,000 (equivalent to $31,108 in 2020). Law enforcement everywhere in the US at present had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a fugitive slave on no more prove than a claimant'southward sworn testimony of ownership. Suspected slaves could neither ask for a jury trial nor testify on their ain behalf. Besides, aiding a delinquent slave past providing food or shelter was now a crime nationwide, punished by half dozen months' imprisonment and a $i,000 fine. Officers capturing a avoiding slave were entitled to a fee for their work, and this expense was to be paid by the Federal Government.[55]

The constabulary was so completely pro-slavery every bit to prohibit the admission of the testimony of a person accused of being an escaped slave into evidence at the judicial hearing to decide the status of the accused escaped slave. Thus, if free Blacks were claimed to be escaped slaves, they could not resist their return to slavery (or enslavement for the first fourth dimension) by truthfully telling their bodily history. Furthermore, the federal commissioners overseeing the hearings were paid $v for ruling a person was gratis, merely were paid $10 for determining they were a slave, thus providing a fiscal incentive to e'er rule in favor of slavery regardless of the evidence.[56] The law further exacerbated the problem of free Blacks beingness kidnapped and sold as slaves.[57]

The Avoiding Slave Act was essential to meet Southern demands. In terms of public opinion in the N, the critical provision was that ordinary citizens were required to assistance slave catchers, and made it a crime to assist a avoiding. Many Northerners securely resented these requirements. Resentment towards the Human activity further heightened tensions betwixt the North and Southward, which were then inflamed further by abolitionists such equally Harriet Beecher Stowe. Her novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, stressed the horrors of recapturing escaped slaves and outraged Southerners.[58]

Stop of slave trade in District of Columbia [edit]

A statute enacted as part of the compromise prohibited the slave trade in Washington, D.C., simply not slave ownership.[59] Southerners in Congress, alarmed and outraged,[60] were unanimous in opposing the provision, seen as a concession to the abolitionists and a bad precedent, merely they were outvoted.[61] However, Washington's residents could still easily purchase and sell slaves in the nearby states of Virginia and Maryland.

Implications [edit]

Map of free and slave states c.  1856

Passage of the Compromise of 1850, as it came to be known, caused celebration in Washington and elsewhere, with crowds shouting, "The Union is saved!" Fillmore himself described the Compromise of 1850 as a "concluding settlement" of sectional issues, though the future of slavery in New Mexico and Utah remained unclear.[62] The admission of new states, or the organisation of territories in the remaining unorganized portion of the Louisiana Purchase, could likewise potentially reopen the polarizing contend over slavery.[63] [64] Not all accepted the Compromise of 1850; a South Carolina newspaper wrote, "the Rubicon is passed ... and the Southern States are now vassals in this Confederacy."[65] [ further explanation needed ] Many Northerners, meanwhile, were displeased by the Fugitive Slave Act.[66] The debate over slavery in the territories would be re-opened in 1854 through the Kansas–Nebraska Deed.

In hindsight, the Compromise only postponed the American Civil State of war for a decade, contrary to the expectations of many at the time, who felt the outcome of slavery had finally been settled.[67] [68] During that decade, the Whig Party completely bankrupt downward, to be replaced with the new Republican Party dominant in the North, while Democrats reigned in the South.[69]

Others[ who? ] fence that the Compromise only made more obvious the pre-existing sectional divisions, and laid the groundwork for time to come conflict. They view the Fugitive Slave Law as helping to polarize the Usa, as shown in the enormous reaction to Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Motel. The passage of the Fugitive Slave Law aroused feelings of bitterness in the North. Furthermore, the Compromise of 1850 led to a breakdown in the spirit of compromise in the Antebellum period. The Compromise exemplifies that spirit,[ which? ] but the deaths of influential senators who worked on the compromise, primarily Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, contributed to the feeling of increasing disparity between the North and South.[ citation needed ]

The delay of hostilities for 10 years immune the Northern states to continue to industrialize. The Southern states, largely based on slave labor and cash crop production, lacked the ability to industrialize heavily.[70] [ full citation needed ] [ page needed ]

According to historian Marking Stegmaier, "The Fugitive Slave Human action, the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, the admission of California as a free state, and even the application of the formula of popular sovereignty to the territories were all less important than the to the lowest degree remembered component of the Compromise of 1850—the statute by which Texas relinquished its claims to much of New Mexico in return for federal supposition of the debts."[ further explanation needed ] [71] [ page needed ]

Other proposals [edit]

Proposals in 1846 to 1850 on the division of the Southwest included the following (some of which are not mutually sectional):

  • The Wilmot Proviso banning slavery in whatever new territory to be acquired from Mexico, non including Texas, which had been annexed the previous yr. It passed the House in August 1846 and Feb 1847 just non the Senate. Later, an try failed to attach the proviso to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
  • The Extension of the Missouri Compromise line was proposed by failed amendments to the Wilmot Proviso by William W. Wick and and then Stephen Douglas to extend the Missouri Compromise line (36°30' parallel north) due west to the Pacific (south of Carmel-by-the-Ocean, California) to allow the possibility of slavery in near of present-day New Mexico and Arizona, and southern California. That line was again proposed by the Nashville Convention of June 1850.
  • Popular sovereignty, adult by Lewis Cass and Stephen Douglas as the position of the Democratic Party, was to permit the (white male) residents of each territory make up one's mind by vote whether to allow slavery. Information technology was implemented in the Kansas–Nebraska Human action of 1854, giving rise to the violence of the "Bleeding Kansas" period.
  • William L. Yancey's "Alabama Platform", endorsed past the Alabama and the Georgia legislatures and by Democratic state conventions in Florida and Virginia, called for no restrictions on slavery in the territories by the federal government or territorial governments before statehood, opposition to any candidates supporting either the Wilmot Proviso or popular sovereignty, and federal legislation to overrule Mexican anti-slavery laws.
  • Two gratuitous states were proposed by Zachary Taylor, who served as President from March 1849 to July 1850. Equally President, he proposed that the entire area become ii free states, called California and New Mexico but much larger than the ones today. None of the expanse would be left as an unorganized or organized territory, which would avoid the question of slavery in the territories.
  • Changing Texas's borders was proposed by Senator Thomas Hart Benton in December 1849 or Jan 1850. Texas'due south western and northern boundaries would be the 102nd top west and the 34th parallel due north.
  • Ii southern states were proposed past Senator John Bell, with the assent of Texas, in Feb 1850. New Mexico would become all Texas land north of the 34th parallel north, including today'southward Texas Panhandle, while the expanse to the southward, including the southeastern role of today's New Mexico, would be divided at the Colorado River of Texas into two Southern states, balancing the admission of California and New Mexico as free states.[72]
  • The first typhoon of the compromise of 1850 had Texas's northwestern boundary be a straight, diagonal line from the Rio Grande 20 miles north of El Paso to the Cherry-red River (Mississippi watershed) at the 100th summit west, the southwestern corner of today'due south Oklahoma.

Run into also [edit]

  • Timeline of events leading to the American Civil State of war

References [edit]

  1. ^ Merry, pg. 120–124
  2. ^ Merry, pp. 211–212
  3. ^ Howe, pp. 735–736
  4. ^ Howe, p. 734
  5. ^ Merry, pp. 176–177
  6. ^ Merry, pg. 187
  7. ^ Merry, pg. 240–242
  8. ^ Merry, pg. 246–247
  9. ^ Merry, pg. 283–285
  10. ^ Merry, pg. 286–289
  11. ^ McPherson, pp. 53–54
  12. ^ Merry, pg. 387–388
  13. ^ Merry, pg. 424–425
  14. ^ Merry, pp. 452–453
  15. ^ Merry, pp. 460–461
  16. ^ Merry, pg. 376–377
  17. ^ Merry, pg. 447–448
  18. ^ McPherson 1988, p. 51.
  19. ^ McPherson 1988, p. 64-68.
  20. ^ "Handbook of Texas Online: Compromise of 1850". Tshaonline.org. June 12, 2010. Retrieved Feb 3, 2016.
  21. ^ Smith, pp. 98, 101–102. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSmith (aid)
  22. ^ Bordewich, pp. 65–66. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBordewich (help)
  23. ^ Bordewich, p. 149. sfn fault: no target: CITEREFBordewich (help)
  24. ^ Smith, pp. 110–111. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSmith (aid)
  25. ^ California and New Mexico: Message from the President of the Us. By United states of america. President (1849–1850 : Taylor), U.s.a.. War Dept (Ex. Doc 17 page ane) Google eBook
  26. ^ McPherson 1988, p. 64-77.
  27. ^ McPherson 1988, p. 64-65.
  28. ^ William Henry Ellison. A self-governing rule, California, 1849–1860 (1950) online
  29. ^ McPherson 1988, p. 66-68.
  30. ^ Smith, pp. 98–99. sfn fault: no target: CITEREFSmith (help)
  31. ^ Finkelman, pp. 58–62, 71.
  32. ^ Smith, pp. 97–98. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSmith (help)
  33. ^ Eisenhower, pp. 101–102.
  34. ^ Bauer, pp. 290–291.
  35. ^ Bauer, pp. 291–292.
  36. ^ Bauer, p. 298–299.
  37. ^ a b c d McPherson 1988, p. 70-72.
  38. ^ Smith, pp. 111–112. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSmith (help)
  39. ^ Smith, pp. 132–139. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSmith (aid)
  40. ^ a b c McPherson, p. 74. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMcPherson (help)
  41. ^ Smith, pp. 112–113, 117. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSmith (help)
  42. ^ John Thousand. Taylor, William Henry Seward: Lincoln'due south right hand (1996) p. 85
  43. ^ Smith, pp. 158, 165–166. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSmith (aid)
  44. ^ Eaton (1957) pp. 192–193. Remini (1991) pp. 756–759
  45. ^ Michael Holt, The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party (1999), pp. 529–530: "merely rapid passage of the autobus bill appeared to offer a timely escape from the crisis."
  46. ^ Smith, pp. 181–184. sfn fault: no target: CITEREFSmith (help)
  47. ^ Bordewich, pp. 306–313. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBordewich (assist)
  48. ^ Bordewich, pp. 314–316, 329. sfn fault: no target: CITEREFBordewich (assist)
  49. ^ Bordewich, pp. 333–334. sfn mistake: no target: CITEREFBordewich (aid)
  50. ^ Smith, pp. 186–188. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSmith (assist)
  51. ^ Smith, p. 188–189. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSmith (assistance)
  52. ^ Scarry, p. 172. sfn fault: no target: CITEREFScarry (help)
  53. ^ Bordewich, pp. 347–348, 359–360. sfn fault: no target: CITEREFBordewich (assistance)
  54. ^ Not all southerners gave up on the idea. Later California's admission, there were several efforts to divide the state. At least one of these enjoyed significant back up from southern members of Congress, but the Civil War prevented action on it.
  55. ^ McPherson 1988, p. 77-81.
  56. ^ "Avoiding Slave Act of 1850". December 26, 2015.
  57. ^ McPherson 1988, p. 81-82.
  58. ^ Larry Gara, "The Fugitive Slave Constabulary: A Double Paradox," Ceremonious War History, September 1964, vol. 10#iii, pp. 229–240
  59. ^ David L. Lewis, District of Columbia: A Bicentennial History, (W.Due west. Norton, 1976), 54-56.
  60. ^ Border War, War and Reconstruction. The Mid-Missouri Civil War Project, University of Missouri School of Constabulary, 2010, archived from the original on June 15, 2010
  61. ^ Damani Davis, "Slavery and Emancipation in the Nation'due south Uppercase," Prologue, Spring 2010, vol. 42#1, pp. 52–59
  62. ^ McPherson, pp. 75–76. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMcPherson (assist)
  63. ^ McPherson, pp. 121–123. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMcPherson (help)
  64. ^ Smith, p. 248. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSmith (help)
  65. ^ Smith, pp. 193–194. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSmith (help)
  66. ^ Smith, p. 201. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSmith (aid)
  67. ^ Robert Remini,The House: A History of the House of Representatives (2006) p. 147
  68. ^ McPherson 1988, p. 72-77.
  69. ^ Holt, Michael F. The Political Crunch of the 1850s (1978).
  70. ^ Elizabeth Pull a fast one on-Genovese, Fruits of Merchant Capital (1983).
  71. ^ Marking J. Stegmaier (1996). Texas, New United mexican states, and the compromise of 1850: boundary dispute & sectional conflict. Kent State Academy Press. ISBN9780873385299.
  72. ^ West. J. Spillman (January 1904). "Adjustment of the Texas Purlieus in 1850". Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Clan. Vol. 7.

Bibliography [edit]

  • Bauer, M. Jack (1985). Zachary Taylor: Soldier, Planter, Statesman of the Erstwhile Southwest. Louisiana Country Academy Press. ISBN0-8071-1237-ii.
  • Bell, John Frederick. "Poesy'due south Place in the Crisis and Compromise of 1850." Journal of the Civil War Era 5#3 (2015): 399–421.
  • Bordewich, Fergus One thousand. America's Smashing Debate: Henry Clay, Stephen A. Douglas, and the Compromise That Preserved the Union (2012) excerpt and text search
  • Eisenhower, John S.D. (2008). Zachary Taylor. The American Presidents serial. Times Books (Macmillan). ISBN978-0-8050-8237-one.
  • Finkelman, Paul (2011). Millard Fillmore. The American Presidents. Times Books. ISBN978-0-8050-8715-4.
  • Foster, Herbert D. (1922). "Webster's 7th of March Speech and the Secession Movement, 1850". American Historical Review. 27 (2): 245–lxx. doi:10.2307/1836156. hdl:2027/loc.ark:/13960/t44q80t43. JSTOR 1836156.
  • Hamilton, Holman. Prologue to Conflict: The Crisis and Compromise of 1850 (1964), the standard historical study[ ISBN missing ]
  • Hamilton, Holman (1954). "Democratic Senate Leadership and the Compromise of 1850". The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 41 (3): 403–eighteen. doi:10.2307/1897490. ISSN 0161-391X. JSTOR 1897490.
  • Holman Hamilton. Zachary Taylor, Soldier in the White House (1951).[ ISBN missing ]
  • Heidler, David South., and Jeanne T. Heidler. Henry Clay: The Essential American (2010), major scholarly biography; 624 pp.[ ISBN missing ]
  • Howe, Daniel Walker (2007). What Hath God Wrought: the Transformation of America, 1815–1848 . Oxford, NY: Oxford University Printing. ISBN978-0-19-507894-7.
  • Holt, Michael F. The Political Crisis of the 1850s (1978).[ ISBN missing ]
  • Holt, Michael F. The Fate of Their Country: Politicians, Slavery Extension, and the Coming of the Civil War (2005).[ ISBN missing ]
  • Johannsen, Robert Due west. Stephen A. Douglas (1973) ISBN 0195016203
  • William Aloysius Keleher (1951). Turmoil in New Mexico. Santa Fe: Rydal Printing. ISBN978-0-8263-0632-6.
  • Knupfer, Peter B. "Compromise and Statesmanship: Henry Dirt's Union." in Knupfer, The Union As It Is: Constitutional Unionism and Exclusive Compromise, 1787–1861 (1991), pp. 119–57.
  • Maizlish, Stephen E. (2018). A Strife of Tongues: The Compromise of 1850 and the Ideological Foundations of the American Civil War. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Printing. ISBN978-0813941196.
  • McPherson, James M. (1988). Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-nineteen-503863-7.
  • Merry, Robert W. (2009). A Country of Vast Designs: James G. Polk, the Mexican State of war, and the Conquest of the American Continent. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN978-0-7432-9743-one.
  • Morrison, Michael A. Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil State of war (1997) ISBN 0807823198
  • Nevins, Allan. Ordeal of the Matrimony (1947) v 2, highly detailed narrative[ ISBN missing ]
  • Potter, David Yard. The Impending Crunch, 1848–1861 (1977), pp. xc–120; Pulitzer Prize[ ISBN missing ]
  • Remini, Robert. Henry Dirt: Statesman for the Union (1991)[ ISBN missing ]
  • Remini, Robert. At the Border of the Precipice: Henry Clay and the Compromise That Saved the Marriage (2010) 184 pages; the Compromise of 1850[ ISBN missing ]
  • Rhodes, James Ford. History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850, vol. i. (1896). complegte text online
  • Rozwenc, Edwin C. ed. The Compromise of 1850. (1957) convenient collection of primary and secondary documents; 102 pp.[ ISBN missing ]
  • Russel, Robert R. (1956). "What Was the Compromise of 1850?". The Journal of Southern History. Southern Historical Association. 22 (iii): 292–309. doi:x.2307/2954547. ISSN 0022-4642. JSTOR 2954547.
  • Sewell, Richard H. Ballots for Liberty: Antislavery Politics in the U.s.a. 1837–1860 New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.[ ISBN missing ]
  • Smith, Elbert B. (1988). The Presidencies of Zachary Taylor & Millard Fillmore. The American Presidency. Academy Press of Kansas. ISBN978-0-7006-0362-6.
  • Stegmaier, Mark J. (1996). Texas, New United mexican states, and the Compromise of 1850: Boundary Dispute & Sectional Crunch. Kent State Academy Printing. ISBN978-0873385299.
  • Waugh, John C. On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How It Changed the Course of American History (2003)[ ISBN missing ]
  • Wiltse, Charles Yard. John C. Calhoun, Sectionalist, 1840–1850 (1951)[ ISBN missing ]

External links [edit]

  • Compromise of 1850
  • Compromise of 1850 and related resource from the Library of Congress
  • Texas Library and Annal Commission Page on 1850 Boundary Human action Archived July 6, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  • Smith, William Roy (1911). "Compromise Measures of 1850". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.).
  • Map of Northward America at the time of the Compromise of 1850 at omniatlas.com

edmistonsamelver.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850

0 Response to "what compromise resulted in the admission of california to the union as a free state?"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel