The Gathering Storm 1848-1860

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Federal Government Attempts to Resolve Slavery in 1850s
Appeal of the Republican Party to Northern Voters
Reasons for the Seven Southern States’ Secession from the Union
The California Gold Rush
Works Cited

Introduction

The United States had a long and elaborate history of slavery before the federal government began to end it actively. During the mid-nineteenth century, the political tensions and divisions between the nation’s Southern and Northern societies were intensified by the discussions on slavery’s future. The Compromise of 1850 briefly resolved part of the divisive issues troubling the North and South but failed to prevent the Civil War, which followed a few years later (Peck 155).

However, new controversies emerged the expanding activism of the abolitionists, including the formation of the slavery-combating Republican party. The arising matters made it difficult to maintain the Union because the ongoing debate on slavery hindered any meaningful attempt to pacify the tense Northern and the Southern populations.

Federal Government Attempts to Resolve Slavery in 1850s

In the mid-nineteenth century, the United States federal government made several attempts to resolve the particular issue of slavery. These efforts culminated in the Compromise of 1850, defined by Clay’s bills, which tried to solve subjugation in the US’s new territories during the Mexican-American war (Peck 155). Under this Compromise, California would be admitted as a free state while New Mexico and Utah residents would be let to allow or reject slavery.

Moreover, Texas would be denied its massive claim to the greater New Mexico. However, it would be compensated for by having the federal government pay its pre-annexation debts (Shi and Tindall 32). At the same time, the Bill would retain servitude within the District of Columbia while prohibiting the sale of captives in the state’s capital. To further appeal to the Southern states’ desire for free interstate movement of slaves, the Compromise would deny congressional interference with the slave trade.

Additionally, the 1850 Compromise allowed for the enactment of The Fugitive Slave Act, which not only strengthened slave catchers but also threatened freed Blacks’ emancipated status. This aspect of the Act was most controversial since it enabled the slave merchants to forcefully capture emancipated Blacks in the Northern free states and falsely claim them as runaway captives (Peck 156). Furthermore, the law compelled white citizens to assist with locating and arresting the slaves who ran away.

Simultaneously, it denied fugitives a chance for a fair trial with a jury, making their plight even more dreadful. Yet, the Compromise of 1850 did little to resolve the issue of slavery altogether. Both sides’ extremists swore to break the Bill’s provisions as it had failed to address the controversial matter of servitude. For instance, the pro-slavery militants in the Lower South dismissed the Bill’s elements as only serving the abolitionists’ interests. While it remains a vital government attempt to resolve slavery, the Compromise of 1850 only made temporary concessions between the two extremists regarding the future of subjugation.

The Wilmot proviso and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were other attempts by the government to solve the slavery controversy. The 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Bill dissolved the Missouri Compromise provisions, allowing the territories to choose free or slave status by popular sovereignty (Stromberg 99). However, it led to the ‘Bleeding Kansas,’ the eruption of violence between the pro-slavery militants and the abolitionists. On the other hand, the Wilmot proviso was meant to illegalize slavery in the newly acquired territories due to the Mexican-American war taking place from 1846 to 1848 (Shi and George 32).

Despite the failure of the majority of the Southern Senate members to pass the Wilmot Act, the Bill intensified the expanding controversy surrounding slavery. Despite their inability to fully address the issue of servitude, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Wilmot proviso remain reasonable federal government attempts to resolve the slavery controversy.

With Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin novel and play causing abolitionist waves in the North, the Dred Scott case remains an essential government attempt to address the matter of slavery. Uncle Tom’s Cabin demonstrated how slavery weakened white character while portraying the anti-Christian way in which subjugation broke Black families (Peck 157). This book’s depiction of slavery inspired and fueled abolitionist movements in the North.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Dred Scott v. Sanford case caused further divisions in the matter of slavery. The Court’s decision to dismiss the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise reiterated that Congress lacked the authority to illegalize slavery in the territories. Moreover, most Southern judges held that Black slaves were not recognized as federal citizens; thus, they could not stand in court (Peck 157). The rulings completely denied Dred Scott the legal right to fight for his emancipation, and the results were a more inflamed nation on the brink of war.

Appeal of the Republican Party to Northern Voters

The events surrounding the ‘Bleeding Kansas’ among other slavery-related occurrences, led to the splintering of the former Whigs into several political factions. Furthermore, the Whigs were well known for their division and disagreement on the issue of subjugation. In this light, the introduction of the 1854 Kansas Nebraska Act to directly repeal the resolutions of the Missouri Compromise, to allow free or slave status to be chosen in the territories by popular sovereignty, caused significant party separation.

This split led to the American political party system’s major realignment. As a result, the Republican party emerged and amassed massive support, especially in the North, where it was treasured. The party’s belief in such driving forces as modernization, commercial expansion, and agricultural development appealed to the Northern camps. It directly opposed the perceived Southern slave culture’s anti-modernity attitude (Peck 157). By 1860, the party dominated national politics and led its presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, to the victory over a divided Democratic Party.

The Grand Old Party (GOP) also appealed to the Northern voters through laissez-faire capitalism, conservative social policies, and its fierce objection to slavery. The Republican Party countered the Southern pro-slavery state’s anti-modernity perspective by adopting the “Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men” slogan (Shi and Tindall 34). This mantra supposedly represented classical American Republicanism and focused on abolishing slavery from the territories.

In addition, the GOP adopted such traditionalist social policies as sponsoring bills and internal improvements to foster individuals’ well-being. It financed the homestead program, which would enable non-slave-owning individuals to possess the western lands. Moreover, the party aided internal developments meant to build infrastructure and foster travel to the frontiers. Such economic ideologues, which defined the Republican Party, won its support from the nation’s northern territories and strengthened its political base.

To further cement their place as the North’s political party of choice, the GOP idolized the North’s economic development models and autonomy. In contrast to the South’s slave labor system and limited industry, the Republicans asserted strongly that the West and North were the pacesetters regarding production, economic progression, and self-reliance. Therefore, they depicted themselves as the party of economic advancement and prosperity, allowing individuals access to land, work, and success.

To this end, the Republican party backed several steamboats and railway building projects and passed legislation to raise tariffs to encourage financiers’ and industrialists’ entrepreneurship. Additionally, it authorized the building of new canals and other related projects, all of which intensely appealed to the Northern voters (Shi and Tindall 32). Thus, the 1860 elections offered the Northern camp a hope of a more economically prosperous future, hence, compelling them to unanimously elect Abraham Lincoln as the next president.

Reasons for the Seven Southern States’ Secession from the Union

The Republican Party following in the North and their impending presidential victory triggered the Southern states to contemplate seceding from the Union. Secession describes the events leading to the Civil War outbreak when eleven Southern states split from the Union. The abolitionist sentiment in the North threatened the slaveholding Southern states’ economic fate since captives provided labor for all their commercial activities (Stromberg 100).

For instance, the state of South Carolina cited Northerners’ failure to follow the national Fugitive Slave Act. The recent rise to the party’s political power, which stood for freedom for all Americans, further made it difficult for the Southern states to stay within the Union. Evidently, the Southern States were concerned about a Northern president who would free slaves and deny them access to free human labor.

Another reason for the Southern state’s secession from the Union is the states’ desire to maintain their sovereignty. After the war of the Revolution, and the end of the contest, the Great Britain signed a definite Treaty acknowledging the colonies’ independence. Furthermore, the Treaty asserted that the colonies (states) would reserve the right to govern themselves.

Additionally, their people bore the responsibility to abolish a Government if it turned destructive towards its founding principles (Stromberg 102). The Southern states recognized the federal government’s attempt to override the very tenets for which their nation was built. Thus, they departed from the Union and formed the confederation instead, electing Jefferson Davis as their leader.

The California Gold Rush

With all the events surrounding slavery in the United States during the 1848-1860 era, the California Gold Rush marked a critical aspect of these occurrences. It describes the unprecedented inflow of fortune seekers in California, which started after James Wilson Marshall discovered gold in the American River at Sutter’s Mill (Shi and Tindall 37). An event which began by chance led to one of the greatest migrations of all time within the United States, with the number of immigrants projected to reach 100,000 (Shi and Tindall 37).

A couple of days after James’ discovery, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was effected, marking the end of the Mexican-American War, with California being under the United States jurisdiction (Shi and Tindall 37). To cater to the needs of the ’49ers’, small gold mining towns emerged complete with basic amenities. The resulting overcrowding of the mining camps expanded, and the towns thrived in lawlessness. On the other hand, San Francisco established a bustling economy, becoming a critical metropolis of the new age.

The Gold Rush is primarily attributed to California’s prompt admission into the United States Union as its 31st state. While applying for statehood in late 1849, California intended to join the Union with a constitution which prohibited the Southern states’ institution of slavery (Shi and Tindall 34).

This stand on slavery provoked a confrontation in Congress between the pro-slavery and the abolitionist politicians. However, the resolutions of the 1850 Compromise suggested by Henry Clay, Senator of Kentucky, allowed it to join the Union as a free state (Shi and Tindall 34).

Despite its numerous economic benefits, the California Gold Rush had negative implications on other groups of people. It not only led to increased aggressive behavior among Native Americans but also intensified discriminatory acts against Chinese immigrants. Moreover, the Gold Rush had extensive environmental effects, including clogging rivers, compromising biodiversity, and soil polluted wig mining waste (Shi and Tindall 38). The Gold Rush turned a sparsely populated California into a region densely packed with people, speeding its admission into statehood.

In conclusion, America’s political environment in the1850s was filled with divisions and disagreements between the Northern and Southern territories. Decisions regarding the fate of slavery in the newly acquired states in the American-Mexican war were the trigger factors. The pro-slavery Southern states wanted to maintain the status quo, despite the expanding abolitionists’ movements spreading all over the country. The Compromise of 1850 resolved some of these differences in perspectives.

However, it failed to prevent the nation from going into the Civil War, which followed a few years later. Additionally, the North’s and the South’s differing positions on the matter of servitude compelled the Southern pro-slavery faction to secede from the Union, fearing for Northern abolitionist reforms in the new territories when Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 presidency.

Works Cited

Peck, Graham A. “Making an Antislavery Nation: Lincoln, Douglas and the Battle over Freedom.” Middle West Review, vol. 5, no. 2, 2019, pp. 155-157.

Shi, David E., and George Brown Tindall. America: A Narrative History. WW Norton & Company, 2016.

Stromberg, Joseph R. “Republicanism, Federalism, and Secession in the South, 1790 to 1865.” Secession, State, and Liberty, edited by David Gordon, Routledge, 2017, pp. 99-134.

Click Here To Order Now!