Transcript Study Guide 3(new)

Largs Academy History Department
America 1850 - 1865
Pupil Study Guide Number 3
The Compromise of 1850
Advanced Higher History
Study Guide Number Three
This study Guide concentrates on the
national political scene from the 1848
Presidential election to the Presidential
election in 1852. During this time,
Slavery, or more correctly, the debate
about the possible expansion of
slaveholding territory in America,
dominated the political scene. Also
during this time, ‘national politics’
became much more clearly ‘sectional’ in
character and both of the existing
national political parties were to feel the
effects of this trend. One of them, the
Whigs, was destined to be so badly split,
it could not long survive.
This Study Guide is about ‘the
politics of Slavery’. It aims to help
you to understand:
• the reasons behind the political &
constitutional crisis of 1850
• the difficulties involved in finding a
compromise solution to the crisis
• the views of the political parties
• the roles of individuals
• the process whereby the 1850
COMPROMISE was finally agreed
• the terms of the 1850 Compromise
• an evaluation of the 1850 Compromise
• the existence or not, of the ‘slave power
conspiracy’
Study Guide 3 deals with the issues arising from:
the annexation of Texas by America
the subsequent war against Mexico
the simultaneous admission of California
the ‘Wilmot Proviso’
the concept of ‘popular’ or ‘squatter’ sovereignty
changing national Party policies & alignments
the Presidential elections of 1848 and 1852
the threat to the Union in 1850
the search for Compromise in 1850
All of the above issues were connected to the divided opinions in America at this time about
whether to allow Slavery into the new western territories.
Reading
‘Origins..’ Chapter 4, Pp 47 - 69
‘BCOF’ Chapter 2, Pp 47 - 77 & Chapter 3, Pp 78 - 116
James Knox Polk (left) was President at the time
of the war against Mexico – indeed opponents of
the war referred to it as ‘Mr Polk’s War’.
Opposition to the war came mainly from
Northern ‘Free Soilers’ who viewed the aims of
the war with disquiet. They feared that the real
aim of the war, (which some felt was an ‘unjust
war’), was to gain more territory for Slavery.
These fears form part of the growing feeling in
some parts of the North that the country was in
the grip of a ‘slave power conspiracy’.
America 1850 - 1865: Study Guide Number Three - The Compromise of 1850
page 1
Introduction
“ This momentous
question, like a
fireball in the night
awakened me and
filled me with terror. I
considered it at once
as the knell of the
Union. It is hushed
indeed for the
moment, but this is
only a reprieve, not a
final sentence.”
This was how Thomas
Jefferson felt about the
1820 Compromise.
As you will see, other
people had much the
same reaction to the
1850 Compromise.
Conflict between ‘North’ & ‘South’ in America was almost as old as the Republic itself. At the heart of
this conflict lay the issues surrounding whether the new Western territories acquired by America should
be admitted to the Union as ‘slave’ or ‘non-slave’ states. This issues was tackled first in the North
West Ordinance of 1778, but the first occasion on which the issue appeared to threaten the Union
took place in 1819 and centred on the admission of Missouri to the Union. At this time there were 22
States in the Union, 11 of which were ‘slave’ states and 11 which were not. Missouri fulfilled all the
qualifications for ‘statehood’ and if admitted, would, since most of her population was from the South,
be a ‘slave’ state. This would clearly upset the delicate balance of power in Washington between the
sections. The House of Representatives and the Senate were deadlocked for weeks on the Missouri
issue. Eventually in early 1820, the Missouri Compromise was agreed. The Missouri Compromise
allowed for:
the admission of Missouri as a ‘slave’ state;
the admission of Maine as a ‘non-slave’ state;
all future admissions of territories acquired as a result of the Louisiana Purchase
would permit slavery below the line of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes North and
ban slavery North of that line.
Henry Clay of Kentucky, Speaker of the House Of Representatives is credited with assembling this
Compromise (though Senator Thomas of Illinois was also heavily involved). The Missouri
Compromise established a pattern of admission of new states in that they were often admitted in ‘pairs’
so that the sectional balance in Washington could be maintained. Although a period of relative calm
followed the Missouri Compromise, it was a deceptive calm. All of the arguments which were to
dominate the politics of Slavery in the 1850s & 1860s were heard in 1820. Most perceptive politicians
could see then, that Slavery had the potential to disrupt traditional national Party lines and create
sectional strife. Sectional differences did not disappear however e.g. the ‘ Nullification Affair’ of
1832/3 in which John C Calhoun of South Carolina led a ‘revolt’ against high tariffs. Sectional issues
relating to Slavery did not disappear either e.g. there were disputes over the Fugitive Slave Laws,
Abolitionist and pro-Slavery propaganda escalated etc. Despite this, both the Whigs and the
Democrats seemed to abide by some ‘unspoken rule’ to exclude Slavery from national political debate
for much of the 1830’s and ‘40s. Such an ‘ostrich’ approach to the burning issue of Slavery and the
expansion of slaveholding territory could not withstand the pressures of the late 1840s when vast new
tracts of land and many potential new states were seeking entry into the Union. The crisis came in the
late 1840’s and centred on;
the annexation of the Texas Republic;
the war against Mexico;
the admission of California.
The ‘Missouri Compromise
line’ ran east to West roughly
along the borderline between
Missouri and Arkansas.
Southerners were quick to
realise that the vast bulk of
America’s potential new states
lay North of that line. That
meant that Southern power
and influence within the
Federal government were at
risk if these new states
entered the Union as ‘Free
Soil’ states. Many Southerners
felt that by preventing Slavery
North of this line, their ‘rights’
were infringed by the Missouri
Compromise
America 1850 - 1865: Study Guide Number Three - The Compromise of 1850
page 2
Task 1, Heading: The Annexation of Texas
Read ‘Origins’, Pp 47 - 49.
1. Briefly describe how Texas gained its independence from Mexico
in the 1830s.
2. Why did most Southerners support and many Northerners oppose,
the inclusion of Texas as a state within the Union?
3. What lay behind the allegation made in the North that the Texas
issue was part of a, ‘Slave Power Conspiracy’?
4. When and why did the annexation of Texas become a serious
political issue for America?
5. How was the annexation actually achieved; how did Mexico react
and why? ( include the development of ‘Manifest Destiny’ in this
answer.)
6. Democrat and Southern slave owner James Polk became
President in 1844. Describe his ‘expansionist policies and say why
you think many Northern Whigs were ‘cynical’ about them.
Task 2, Heading: The Mexican War, 1846 - 1848
Read ‘Origins’, Pp 49 - 51.
The events of the Mexican war itself are outwith our period. Our
interests are in the effects of the war and its settlement, on the future
of the sectional conflict over Slavery and slaveholding territories in
America.
1. Some Northerners called this war, “Mr Polk’s War.” What is the
significance of this fact, in terms of the sectional conflict in America?
2. Why did the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo heighten the fears of
many Northerners about the ‘Slave Power Conspiracy’?
Reaction to the War Against Mexico
The war against Mexico was strongly supported by the majority of Americans. Support was strongest
among Southerners and opposition greatest among some groups of Northern Whigs. However, even
some Northern Democrats who had voted for Polk, were uneasy about the possible repercussions of
the war - especially with regard to the question whether the vast new tracts of land, which were below
the Missouri line, would swell the ranks of slave states and increase Southern domination both of the
Democrat Party and of national, Federal politics. The ‘sectional’ nature of the opposition to the war is
clearly shown in the controversy which surrounded the ‘Wilmot Proviso’. At this distance from the
events, it is hard to imagine the depth of feeling stirred up by the outcomes of this ‘small war’. Despite
these difficulties, we need to remind ourselves that 1850 was indeed a time of very severe constitutional
crisis for America. Talk of Southern secession from the Union was in the air for months on end.
America 1850 - 1865: Study Guide Number Three - The Compromise of 1850
page 3
Task 3, Heading: The Wilmot Proviso
Use this as an introduction to your notes on this task
“ The United States
will conquer Mexico
but it will be as the
man who swallows
the dose of arsenic
which brings him
down in turn. Mexico
will poison us.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
In 1846, Congressman David Wilmot, an otherwise fairly obscure Pennsylvanian Democrat, added an
amendment to an otherwise routine Bill to the effect that Slavery should be excluded from any territory
gained by America as a result of the war against Mexico. This seemingly minor ‘detail’ caused uproar
in the Federal government and throughout the country. Irrespective of Wilmot’s motives for
introducing his ‘Proviso’, it had the effect of polarising political debate in Washington into ‘North’ v.
‘South’. Northern politicians of all ‘shades’ rallied in support of the proviso ( for a whole variety of
reasons) whilst the majority of Southern politicians opposed the Proviso - for the same reason - i.e.
that the Proviso seemed to threaten the potential expansion of slaveholding territory. This polarisation
was a fore taste of what was to come in the rest of the 1850s. It also forms the heart of a key question
in the course. I.e. Why was it possible to find a Compromise in 1850, but impossible in 1860?
Read ‘Origins’, Pp 51 - 53
1. To what extent is it true to say that David Wilmot’s motives for
introducing his Proviso had more to do with internal wrangles within
the Democrat Party than with any concerns he may have had about
the plight of slaves?
2. Why do you think that Northern politicians of all shades would
have supported the Wilmot Proviso?
3. Why did the Proviso pass the House of Representatives but fail in
the Senate? What do the voting returns illustrate?
4. What prompted Robert Toombs to declare that if Congress passed
the Proviso, he would favour disunion rather than degradation?
Calhoun, States Rights & ‘Nullification
“As things now stand
the South cannot
with safety remain in
the Union…and there
is little or no
prospect of any
change for the
better.”
Calhoun in a private
letter of February 1850.
Fortunately for the Union
at this time, his pessimism
also contained an ‘escape
clause’, see right.
The South in particular had always emphasised their commitment to States Rights, seeing this doctrine
as a strong constitutional safeguard for the ‘Southern way of life’. For the most part, Northern
politicians had been content to allow the South to use States Rights as a means of preventing Federal
interference in Slavery as it existed in the Southern states. Instead, Northern politicians had
increasingly turned their attention to the process of preventing the expansion of slaveholding states by
‘interfering’ in and seeking to prevent the expansion of slaveholding in the new territories. ( Newly
acquired land was firstly a ‘Territory’, then a ‘State’). John C Calhoun challenged the right of the
Federal government to seek to influence what happened in the territories. Despite his setback over the
Nullification Affair, Calhoun’s influence was still strong in the South. In 1847 he issued his ‘Platform of
the South’ in which he claimed that the territories were the property of all the states, people from all the
states had the right to migrate there and take with them whatever ‘property’ they saw fit. If a
Southerner included slaves within his property, then the Federal government had no right to interfere
in this. Any Federal law which sought to do so was, in Calhoun’s word, ‘nullified’. If the Federal
government ( prompted he claimed by the Northern majority) continued to deny Southerners their
rights, then the South might have no option but to secede and if they did, the South would have ‘right’
on their side. Calhoun’s speeches and writings on the South’s views on States Rights, formed the basis
for the secessionist cause later in the decade. Calhoun, the Senator from South Carolina, though he
feared for the future of the Union in 1850 and though he was a passionate defender of the Southern
case, never-the-less retained a faith in the Union. Unlike some of the Southern ‘Fire Eaters’ ( a group,
still in a minority even in South Carolina, who believed in Southern nationalism and who pressed for
Southern secession from the Union), Calhoun was prepared to throw his weight behind “ some
timely and effective measure” which might allow the South to remain within the Union. Calhoun’s
stance on this crisis is an important factor in the brokering of the 1850 Compromise.
America 1850 - 1865: Study Guide Number Three - The Compromise of 1850
page 4
The 1848 Presidential Election
The Wilmot Proviso ensured that the 1848 Presidential election would be dominated by the politics of
Slavery. Within both the Whig & Democrat parties, powerful groups of Northerners had emerged and
these groups supported the Wilmot Proviso. Within the Democrat party this group was known as the
‘Barnburners’ whilst the Whig group were known as ‘Conscience Whigs’. Both parties knew that
to win the election, they had to appeal to voters in both North & South and both parties worked hard
to coax these groups ‘back to the fold’ and to diffuse the Slavery issue. The Whigs found this easier
than the Democrats. They united on the slogan of ‘No Territory’ i.e. if the war with Mexico ended
without territorial gains from Mexico then the issue of the expansion of Slavery would not arise. The
Democrats found the task of reconciling the Barnburners more difficult since the Democrats had
supported the war and the whole idea of territorial gain. The problem for the Democrats was to
reconcile those Southerner Democrats who increasingly agreed with Calhoun, with those Northern
Democrats who supported the Wilmot Proviso. For the two positions to co-exist within the same
Party appeared to be incompatible. The solution which the Democrats came up with was called
‘popular’ or ‘squatter sovereignty’. Dreamed up by Lewis Cass (who was keen to be Democrat
candidate for President) it basically meant that the decision about whether a new territory should be
slave or non-slave should be left up to the people living in that territory. This was a deceptively simple
solution and worked for many Democrats in the North. The concept of ‘popular sovereignty’ was
revived a few years later by Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois who tried to use it to solve the
problems of western expansion / slavery expansion later in the decade.(The question about WHEN
the population could make this decision comes to haunt the territories of Kansas & Nebraska in the
mid 1850s.)
The 1848 Presidential Election - The Candidates
The Democrats selected Cass and the Whigs selected a Mexican war hero, Zachary Taylor, who was a
Southerner. Neither choice satisfied the anti-Slavery groups. Barnburners (I.e. some Northern
democrats) met and nominated Martin Van Buren whilst Conscience Whigs met and denounced the
choice of Taylor. Another Northern group called the Liberty Party also met and were led by Salmon P
Chase who called for a general meeting of all Northern ‘Free Soilers’ in the town of Buffalo in New
York state. The three anti-Slavery groups combined at this meeting attended by 15,000 wildly
enthusiastic delegates. The Free Soil Party was formed. Van Buren would be its Presidential
candidate with the Whig, Charles Francis Adams, as his running mate on a ‘platform’ written by Chase.
The Platform combined restrictions on the spread of slave states and other purely sectional interests
such as a plea for cheap land and internal improvements. This was the first occasion on which a
sectional Party had sought electoral support and to do so, the Free Soil Party made it clear that their
opposition to the expansion of slave states was NOT the same as a fight for the rights of black
people, free or slave. This allowed the Free Soil Party to seek support from Northerners who had no
sympathy at all for the notion of that black people had rights.
Zachary Taylor won a rare and close victory for the Whigs whilst the Free Soil party gained a very
respectable 10% share of the vote. The election was a momentous one in that for the first time, its
focus was the issue of the expansion of slave territories. It also raised the whole business of Southern
domination of the Presidency and the Senate. It meant that in future, political debates could no longer
completely ignore Slavery itself, but above all it showed that US politics centred on sectional conflict.
“Old Rough and Ready”.
Zachary Taylor (right) was
well into his 60s when he was
elected President. He died 16
months into his Presidency.
America 1850 - 1865: Study Guide Number Three - The Compromise of 1850
page 5
Task 4, Heading: The 1848 Presidential Election - The Aftermath
Read ‘Origins’, Pp 54 - 58.
1. How did Calhoun heighten sectional tension in December 1848?
2. Why did events, especially in California, add still further to this
tension?
3. President Taylor is often described as a man of ‘surprising
contrasts’, one of which was his reliance on Senator William Seward
for advice. What is surprising about that and why was this fact
disliked in the South?
4. Given his background, why were Taylor’s actions in relation to
California also surprising? How did he seek to re-assure the South
that his actions on California were not an attack on Southern rights?
5. Why did the proposal to admit both California and New Mexico
appear to increase sectional tension?
6. Describe Southern reaction to Taylor’s plans for California and
New Mexico - especially the reaction of those Southern Whigs who
had stayed loyal to Taylor rather than join Calhoun.
Crisis in 1850: The Key Points of Conflict
In early 1850 America was in the grip of a serious political and constitutional crisis. No business could
be done in Congress - it took 63 ballots to chose the Speaker and fist fights among politicians on the
floor of the House were common. The nation was stymied by a series of issues all of which had
sectional roots:
What to do
about about
the status
of
California,
& the other
territory
gained from
Mexico
What to do
about about
the status
of Slavery
in all of
these new
territories
America 1850 - 1865: Study Guide Number Three - The Compromise of 1850
What to do
about about
the
boundaries
of Texas
and the
debt owed
to many of
its citizens
What to do
about about
the
continued
slave trade
within
Washington
DC
What to do
about about
the Fugitive
Slave laws
v. the
Personal
Liberty laws
page 6
Task 5, Heading: The 1850 Compromise: The Key Personnel
1. Write a ‘potted biography’ of each of these men
2. In the first stage of finding a compromise,
Henry Clay’s ‘omnibus’ proposals were the basis
of months of debate. Look at Pp 58/9 of ‘Origins’
and write out the contents of Clay’s proposals.
3. Read the extract from the three main speeches
( Clay, Calhoun & Webster). Outline the main
points made by each man in these extracts.
4. What did Clay mean when he claimed that
‘nature would check the spread of Slavery more
effectively than a thousand Wilmot Provisos’?
5. For what reason did Calhoun claim that the
solution to the present crisis lay with the North?
6. Why did Webster’s speech ‘offend many of his
constituents’?
7. For what reasons were the voices of
conciliation such as Clay & Webster,
unsuccessful? Should President Taylor shoulder
some of the blame for maintaining the crisis?
8. Why did the Nashville Convention of Southern
states have relatively little impact? Which event
in the summer of 1850 had a far bigger impact on
the 1850 crisis & why?
The 1850 Compromise: The Final Outcomes
The 1850 crisis
marked the entry
onto the national
political stage of
Stephen Douglas,
the Democrat
Senator from Illinois,
of whom, much
more later.
Henry Clay’s omnibus Bill ultimately failed and Clay retired from the political scene, exhausted.
Calhoun died soon after. Webster too was soon to pass. These men, though they were of opposing
views and were strong advocates of their section’s politics, were also of the generation who had strong
personal connections to the Revolution and who had passionate faith in the Union. Their passing
ushered in a new generation of politicians, some of whom had neither the connection nor the faith.
This is one factor in the growing polarisation of American politics in the 1850s and also a factor in
why Compromise was much harder to find in 1860. Strangely however, the circumstances were such
that Stephen Douglas felt able to pick up Clay’s compromise proposals and get them passed in
Congress. There was one significant difference between the approach taken by Clay and that adopted
by Douglas. Where Clay had put together an all-embracing set of proposals, and politicians from both
sections had to accept them all, Douglas split them up and each proposal (or often, a pair of
proposals) was passed separately using different political alliances skilfully put together by Douglas.
We now need to look at why Douglas was able to get his version of Clay’s proposals accepted and
what exactly these proposals were.
America 1850 - 1865: Study Guide Number Three – The Compromise of 1850
page 7
The 1850 Compromise: The Final Outcomes [continued]
As we discussed earlier in this Study Guide, one of the most commonly asked questions about the
build up to the Civil War is concerned with why it was possible to achieve a Compromise in 1850, but
impossible ten years later on. As we have seen, Henry Clay found it impossible to repeat his feat of
1820 and achieve a Compromise in 1850. However, using essentially the same proposals as Henry
Clay, Stephen Douglas did manage to secure a series of Compromise agreements. Some of the factors
which helped him were:
President Taylor, who was opposed to Compromise, died & was replaced
by Millard Fillmore who threw his weight behind Douglas’ proposals
Politicians such as Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, who were the voices
of moderation and of conciliation, had enormous prestige, status &
influence in both sections where they promoted the cause of the Union.
Even John C Calhoun, the arch proponent of ‘states rights’ and ‘justice
for the South’ saw the possibility of Compromise and was part of the
generation whose reverence for the Union was very strong indeed.
In both North & South, the ‘radical’ voices were not as powerful as they
were to become. e.g. Daniel Webster felt able to ignore the Abolitionists
in his home state of Massachusetts and give his support to the
Compromise despite the inclusion in it, of harsher Fugitive Slave Laws.
Similarly, the Nashville Convention of Southern states failed to attract the
support for Secession which the ‘Fire Eaters’ had hoped - there was still,
in 1850, a powerful group of Southern politicians who were moderates
and supporters of the Union.
Despite the bitterness of the sectional conflict, in 1850 the two main
political parties, Whigs & Democrats, were still very much ‘national’
political parties and able to influence their supporters in both sections.
This situation was to change dramatically by 1860
The 1850 Compromise: The Final Outcomes [continued]
Stephen Douglas secured the passing of these separate measures:
q California was admitted as a ‘free’ state
q New Mexico & Utah were to be ‘territories’ without Slavery restrictions
q The slave trade was abolished in Washington DC, though Slavery was still allowed
q 10 million dollars was set aside to settle the debt owed to Texas citizens
q Border disputes between Texas & New Mexico were settled
q A stronger Fugitive Slave Law was to be put in place
America 1850 - 1865: Study Guide Number Three - The Compromise of 1850
page 8
The 1850 Compromise: An Evaluation
“ The consummation
of the iniquities of
this most disgraceful
session of Congress”
CF Adams
“ The question of
Slavery has been
avoided. It has not
been settled.
Politicians from both sections realised that in 1850, sectional -based conflict rooted in Slavery had
reached the stage that the Union was genuinely threatened. Although on each vote relating to
Douglas’ proposals the divisions were firmly ‘sectional’, the Compromise was finally agreed and both
of the major political parties hoped that the Compromise would signal a return to ‘normal, i.e. that the
unspoken agreement to avoid discussion of the issues relating to Slavery on the national political stage,
would continue.
There is no doubt that the 1850 Compromise did succeed in avoiding the threat of Secession however ‘real’ that threat was. There is also no doubt that a period of relative political calm ensued aided perhaps by a period of economic prosperity. The bulk of the population seemed to welcome the
Compromise and looked forward to enjoying the fruits of the prosperity. The period of calm lasted
well into the 1852 Presidential Election campaign.
Severe sectional conflict continued however just under the surface of this calm. At the centre of this
conflict lay the much tougher Fugitive Slave Laws which were part of the Compromise deal.
SP Chase
Task 6, Heading: The 1850 Fugitive Slave Laws
Use this as an introduction to the task:
“ I think the
settlement of the last
session and the firm
course of the
Administration in the
execution of the
Fugitive Slave Law
has given a new lease
to Slavery.”
Un-named Southern
politician
Oddly, the revised Fugitive Slave Law was the part of Douglas’s proposals which was little debated in
Congress at the time. Almost immediately after the Compromise was agreed the Fugitive Slave Laws
came to be seen by both Southern fire eaters and Northern abolitionists as not only the weakest part of
the compromise, but as the source of even greater sectional friction.
Read ‘Origins’ Pp 63 - 64.
1. In an extended answer, explain why the Fugitive Slave Laws…
[a] horrified the Abolitionists;
[b] caused great resentment among many Southerners.
2. To what extent did the publication in 1852 of ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’
make an impact on sectional conflict over the Slavery issue?
(a special publication on this book is appended)
Read ‘BCoF’ pp 78 to 89.’
In addition, use this
reading to make some
‘case notes’ relating to:
This contains information on some notable cases in the North in
which the new Fugitive Slave Laws were put to the test. Make notes
on;
 the Crafts
q the Northern ‘Vigilance Committees’.
 Shadrach
 Thomas Sims
 The Battle of Christiana
q the concept of ‘Southern honour’ and its links with escaped slaves.
q the ‘higher law’ doctrine.
America 1850 - 1865: Study Guide Number Three - The Compromise of 1850
page 9
The 1852 Presidential Election
This election was the last one before the war in which the two parties succeeded in restricting debate
about Slavery and the expansion of slaveholding territory. Although the anti-Slavery lobby
campaigned strongly in the North, they did so mainly outwith the two main parties. Sectional-based
disputes within the Democrats resulted in the selection of the ‘colourless’ Franklin Pierce as their
candidate whilst the Whigs eventually chose General Winfield Scott, of Mexican war fame in the
expectation that he would, like Taylor, attract large numbers of votes just for ‘who he was’. Both
parties endorsed the 1850 Compromise but for the Whigs, the signs were ominous. Northern Whigs
were unhappy that their platform said nothing about Slavery, its western expansion & the operation of
the Fugitive Slave Laws. Southern Whigs did not like the choice of Scott as candidate because they
feared he was too much influenced by the ‘Free Soil’ Seward. The outcome of the election was a
disaster for the Whigs. Pierce won a landslide victory - in both sections, with Scott taking only 4 states.
The impact of this defeat on the Whig supporters was devastating (as indeed it was for the Free Soil
Party supporters). Support for the Whigs in Southern states dropped from the previous 50% down to
35% and even among Northern Whigs there was despondency at the fear that their Party could never
again challenge what seemed to be the ever more powerful Democrat Party - a Democrat Party which
appeared to Northern eyes, to be even more dominated by Southern vested interests.
Task 7, Heading ; Further Evidence of a ‘Slave Power Conspiracy’?
Read ‘origins’ Pp 66 - 68
1. To what extent do the first years in office of Franklin Pierce
provide Northerners with evidence that Pierce and the South were
intent on expanding slaveholding territory?
2. To what extent did Pierce’s actions contribute to:
[a] sectional splits within the Democrat Party?
[b] increased Northern conviction that ‘Democrat’ meant
‘Southern’?
Harriet Beecher
Stowe, author of
the influential
bestseller, ‘Uncle
Tom’s Cabin’.
America 1850 - 1865: Study Guide Number Three - The Compromise of 1850
page 10
Study Guide Number Three
This Unit about ‘the politics of
Slavery’ dealt with complex issues.
Make sure that you are confident
that you do understand:
• the reasons behind the political &
constitutional crisis of 1850
• the difficulties involved in finding a
compromise solution to the crisis
• the views of the political parties
• the roles of individuals
• the process whereby the 1850
COMPROMISE was finally agreed
• the terms of the 1850 Compromise
• an evaluation of the 1850 Compromise
Task 8, Heading: Using the Sources
Conclusion
The period 1848 to 1850 was marked by the most
severe constitutional crisis in the brief history of the
Union. A Compromise of sorts was eventually
reached but not without a considerable struggle.
Historians continue to debate whether the various
‘agreements’ secured by Stephen Douglas amount in
fact to a Compromise. Certainly if the Compromise
is assessed in terms of solving the problems that
brought on the crisis, then it was not a success. Not
only did these problems remain unsolved, they were
to get worse as the 1850s wore on. Of particular
interest was the implementation of the revised
Fugitive Slave Laws. In some parts of the North,
especially in New England, enforcement of these
Laws by Federal officers enraged the Abolitionist
community and also added to its membership. In the
South, there was equal fury that some Northern
states passed ‘Personal Liberty Laws’ in an attempt
to avoid having to cooperate with the Fugitive Slave
Laws. In the South, there was a feeling that the
Northern reaction to the Fugitive Slave Laws was a
‘test’ of the North’s willingness to allow the South to
continue with its ‘Peculiar Institution.’ New England
in particular seemed to fail this test. The huge
publicity attracted to the publication of Uncle Tom’s
Cabin and the apparent acceptance across the world
of the bleak picture it painted of Slavery in the South
further enraged Southerners. Although there was a
period of relative calm following the Compromise, it
was to be short lived.
Look back at all the Sources provided throughout Study Guide 3
1. What was the ‘momentous question’ which so disturbed Thomas Jefferson? [P2)
2. Why do you think that Emerson thought ‘Mexico will poison us’? [P4]
3. Compare the three responses to the 1850 Compromise [P9]
4. Compare the two reviews of ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ [P11]
5. What evidence can you detect in the De Bow’s Review of a ‘hardening’ of Southern attitudes
towards the North’s attacks on Slavery?
6. What comments would you make about the use of ‘De Bow’s Review’ as an historical source?
America 1850 - 1865: Study Guide Number Three - The Compromise of 1850
page 12