The Pros And Cons Of Slavery In America

Slavery is the act of owning a person, making them the legal property of another and forced to obey the defined owner. It was the dominant form of labor in the country of the United States between 1815-1861. This was a country that stood for liberty and freedom, and the way they operated was based off of controlling and forcing others to complete tasks. James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson were President during this time span, and each had different views and morals when it came to slavery. James Madison, the first of the four to run his term, was a key contributor to the Bill of Rights. He believed in human rights especially rights to liberty and property. In an article written to address Madison and other’s views and inputs in the bill, it states “They[George Mason, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson] were men for whom ‘possessing property’ was a natural and an inherited right. And a substantial portion of the property that each owned was slaves”(Roger Wilkins). James Madison wrote in the Bill of Rights each man’s individual liberties and freedoms, and still goes on and with his rights, such as that to own property, he owns other men. James Madison was not someone known to be against slavery, however, he was not a supporter, he merely believed he had the right to property, and with the knowledge that slaves were property he gave himself the right to own slaves.

At the end of the Mexican War during Polk’s term as president, many new lands west of Texas were yielded to the United States, and the debate over the westward expansion of slavery was rekindled. Southern politicians and slave owners demanded that slavery be allowed in the West because they feared that a closed door would spell doom for their economy and way of life. Whig Northerners, however, believed that slavery should be banned from the new territories. Pennsylvanian congressman David Wilmot proposed such a ban in 1846, even before the conclusion of the war. Southerners were outraged over this Wilmot Proviso and blocked it before it could reach the Senate. When this act was denied it

Slavery. A topic that should never be brought up in a conversation, should never be said casually, and should never happen. Slavery, despite being illegal in every country, is still going on, and at different odds. Slavery has many forms. Many of which, only the cruelest of minds can think up. Slavery is different than in the 1800s because it has many more forms, has more potential slaves, and more profit.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, in Document C, that “the United States will conquer Mexico, but it will be as the man swallows the arsenic.” This statement points out a key similarity between this war and the Civil War- both were tainted by slavery. The Mexican War would result in new slave states, making abolitionists angry, resulting in the conflicts that started the Civil War. Document D, written by David Wilmot of the Wilmot Proviso, reveals the tensions created by the Mexican cession, saying, “I ask not that slavery be abolished, I demand that this government preserve the integrity of free territory against the aggressions of slavery-against its wrongful usurpations.” Up until that point, there were an equal number of slave and free states. How would the balance be maintained? Wilmot suggested that slavery remain only in the current slave states and not spread to any new territories. However, his plan was rejected, showing that neither side would compromise, but, instead, that the Union would break apart. Therefore, the Compromise of 1850 was passed as a way to appease the north and the south. Document E shows the distinct separation of slave and free states resultant of this compromise. This reveals a major breakup of the Union over slavery. Document F points out the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, created by Stephen Douglas, which divided the newly gained Nebraska Territory into two states, Kansas and Nebraska, and

Because the Compromise of 1850 prohibited slavery in the land gained in the Mexican War, southern Americans sought new territory to expand slavery. : “slavocrats”

One of the main topics of concern for many decades was when new territories want to enter the union, will they be free or slave states? Henry Clay, one of the great compromisers, was able to work all sorts of different compromises on several issues throughout the years. One of his most famous compromises was the Missouri compromise. This allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state, and every new state following would be free North of the Mason-Dixon line. This would try to stop the expansion of slavery, and for a short while, it did. During this time period, most Americans believed in manifest destiny, so they expanded westward. As many Southern’s moved west, they brought with them their slaves. Furthermore, they moved to places where slavery made economic sense, for example

Now that this triumph of Manifest Destiny was complete, the question of expanding slavery to the newly acquired territories arose. Polk assumed there would not be slavery there because it would simply not work in the natural conditions of the lands but southerners strongly disagreed. Northern congressmen tried to pass a resolution known as the Wilmot Proviso to exclude slavery from the new territory, extremely infuriating southerners and dividing the parties into a conflict of sections.

After the Mexican War had ended, a Democratic congressman from PA, David Wilmot, gave a provocative speech to the House that endorsed the annexation of Texas as a slave state on August 8 of 1846. Because Mexico now forbade slavery, Wilmot declared that if any new territory were to be acquired from Mexico, there should be no slavery or involuntary servitude there. His Proviso sparked new political conflict and debate over the extension of slavery and tested the Missouri Compromise that had protected both slave states and free states and not permitting it in newly admitted states. With newly acquired territory from the Mexican War, the national debate continued and in 1846, the House of Representatives passed the Wilmot Proviso but it did not pass through the Senate. President Polk decided that the debate over slavery had nothing to do with the war in Mexico and dismissed the proviso as mischievous and foolish”. Furthermore, the president convinced Wilmot to withhold his amendment from any bill in relation with the annexation of Mexican territories. Although his proviso did not pass, his idea kept appearing in Congress years after. People who opposed his Proviso wrote a thesis to counter the proviso such as John C. Calhoun. Calhoun declared that slavery should be allowed in the Mexican territory because per the Fifth Amendment, people were granted life, liberty and property; slaves were property. Thus the topic of slavery played a prominent role in dividing

The 1850s were believed to be a period of compromise to prevent Southern secession from the Union. Instead, it brought more divisions along sectional lines, Northern Democrats and Northern Whigs (free-states) against the Southern Democrats and Southern Whigs (slave states). David M. Potter’s book Impending Crisis provides evidence of sectionalism between free and slave states. Potter contends that during the expansionist period of the 1840s the country was experiencing a growth of American nationalism, but “the emergence of the sectionalism which almost destroyed the nation was symbolized by an amendment to an appropriation bill which was never enacted.” For the next fifteen years the Wilmot Proviso (1846) and the issue of slavery would become “a catalyst of all sectional antagonisms, political, economic, and cultural…opened the floodgates of sectionalism, for now all the pent-up moral indignation which had been walled in by the constitutional inhibition could be vented into the territorial question.”

The prospect of slavery’s extension into the American West most certainly shaped sectional politics by inflaming grievances and tensions, and sparking heated and occasionally violent protests, yet compromise sometimes was reached – occasionally among strange political bedfellows – in the interest of holding off the specter of civil war. This paper will focus on the issues surrounding the possible extension of slavery into the following areas: the Missouri Territory and the Louisiana Purchase in general, Texas (annexation), the Oregon Territory, California (annexation), Nebraska (unorganized), and the Kansas Territory.

Henry Clay pleaded for the north and south to reach an agreement, but John Calhoun wanted slavery in the western territories. [Page 464] In my opinion, this began to help settle the dispute about the freedom of the slaves, because the slaves now had to accept they weren’t going to be allowed freedom. This event also set the agreement, that the slaves be returned to the south, at the same time the north could separate peacefully to cause a lessening of this ongoing problem, if they refused to take part in this. I agree with the way this was handled, until the south stated they would use force to leave the union if an agreement could not be reached.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, in Document C, that “the United States will conquer Mexico, but it will be as the man swallows the arsenic.” This statement points out a key similarity between this war and the Civil War- both were tainted by slavery. The Mexican War would result in new slave states, making abolitionists angry, resulting in the conflicts that started the Civil War. Document D, written by David Wilmot of the Wilmot Proviso, reveals the tensions created by the Mexican cession, saying, “I ask not that slavery be abolished, I demand that this government preserve the integrity of free territory against the aggressions of slavery-against its wrongful usurpations.” Up until that point, there were an equal number of slave and free states. How would the balance be maintained? Wilmot suggested that slavery remain only in the current slave states and not spread to any new territories. However, his plan was rejected, showing that neither side would compromise, but, instead, that the Union would break apart. Therefore, the Compromise of 1850 was passed as a way to appease the north and the south. Document E shows the distinct separation of slave and free states resultant of this compromise. This reveals a major breakup of the Union over slavery. Document F points out the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, created by Stephen Douglas, which divided the newly gained Nebraska Territory into two

Slavery, in itself, was the most predominant reason for the breakup of the Union. It fundamentally divided the Free northern states and the Slave southern states, causing immediate tension. However, it was the various conflicts resultant of the central issue of slavery that truly plunged the Union into Civil War. The foremost of these tensions dealt with new territories, particularly those gained in the Mexican cession. The Mexican War was the direct result of “Manifest Destiny,” or the belief that the United States was ordained by God to control North America from coast to coast, which was introduced by the article used in Document 1. This article by John L. O’Sullivan was written to encourage the “reception of Texas...for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” Notice, in this excerpt, the use of the word “free.” At that point in time, the southern economy relied on the free labor of the slaves working on huge plantations. Therefore,

During the late 1840’s there were several arguments over whether slavery should be allowed to expand into the new western territories since the politicians were consumed with discussing the subject (American Anthropological Association., 2007). This situation was one area that the North and South could not see eye to eye on and they took different stances on the issue of slavery. The northerners did not want to live among the African Americans but did not agree with slavery; although, the southerners still felt as though without the slaves that it would destroy their economic futures (Schultz, K., 2013). The first round of conflict came when a congressman name Wilmot wrote a provision keeping the wealthy slave owners from developing larger than standard plantations as this would keep the average white man that could not afford slaves from being able to purchase land. However, this provision never passed the Senate, and the North still opposed slavery in the new territories.

In April of 1846, President Polk dispatched General Zachary Taylor to move American soldiers to into the region between the Nueces River and Rio Grande (Foner 468). According to Grant, the mobilization of U.S. troops into the disputed territory beyond the Nueces was an antagonistic act set in motion to intimidate Mexico and force them into initiating war. He affirms that although the land itself had immeasurable wealth, it could have been “obtained by other means” (Grant). A large number of Americans agreed with Grant, viewing the move against Mexico as an act of hostility against a weaker nation to satisfy the United States and President Polk’s desire for more land. Among the war’s critics, was Congressman Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was skeptical of the motives behind the invasion of Mexico, citing it as unconstitutional and questioning the validity behind Polk’s claim of American casualties at the hands of Mexican soldiers (Foner 468). The intention behind the war became apparent when newly acquired territories allowed for slavery. Texas adopted slavery protection laws and created additional laws that denied civil rights to people of color while California courts allowed Indian children and orphans to be sold into slavery (Foner 471,473). Grant’s narrative asserts his shared skepticism behind the United States invasion of Mexico and his disapproval