The Wilmot Proviso provoked?

Question

a. nationalism
b. sectionalism
c. nullification
d. secession

I think it's either B or D

Answer 1

The answer is clearly B (esp since secession came 15 years later.. and that was not prompted by ANY legislation or policy enacted or even considered, but by the election of a Republican to the Presidency)

But it is in some sense an odd answer. The proviso hardly CAUSED sectionalism. It simply was one of the first things to crystallize the question that already divided the sentiment of North and South -- what would the country do about slavery in its new possessions (gained by the Mexican War)?

It's hardly as if the Wilmot Proviso somehow created this situation, or changed the course the nation was on. Many in the North had objected BEFORE the war to the annexation of Texas and to Polk's steps that led to war, believing it all to be a strategy of Southern leaders to add SLAVE states. In fact, for the most part, that's exactly what it was! (That's why Polk also campaigned on the taking of the Oregon Territory -- to gain NORTHERN support for his expansionist plans.)

(For the South, this was partly a simple political calculation -- the North, through immigration, was growing rapidly-- and the South feared a weakening in its political power, and even that Northern abolitionists and Free Soilers would eventually succeed in outlawing slavery --and so their whole economy and way of life-- in the territories AND in . Part of it was also a matter of pride in their society and way of life, and in defense of it against the criticisms of Northern abolitionists. At one time the view had been strong in the South that slavery was a necessary evil that would die out in time.

But by the 1830s the view of Calhoun --that slavery was a positive GOOD-- was taking over, and plans and hopes for its eventual end in the South were squashed. To perpetuate their way of life meant EXPANDING slavery into new places. The Mexican War was actually just the FIRST of many plans to buy or conquer new slave territories.)

If you need further proof that this sectional tension was nothing new -- consider the Missouri Compromise (1820)

As for "anti-slavery incidents" in Congress -- there had been a drawn-out squabble in Congress over whether they would even RECEIVE anti-slavery petitions (e.g., for Congress to outlaw slavery, or at least the slave trade, in Washington DC, as it had the authority to do). For YEARS the House had a "gag rule" disallowing the reception and discussion of these petitions (mostly from abolitionists groups in the Northeast, esp. from women who treasured their 'right to petition Congress', since they could not vote). Southerners insisted that even to acknowledge these, much less to discuss them, was insulting and degrading to them. John Quincy Adams led the often lonely fight against this gag rule until it was finally lifted. (This, by the way, is why at his death Adams, whose Presidency was a failure, was mourned more extensively than any other national leader until Lincoln.)

Incidentally, Adams ALSO led a SOLO filibuster (while those were still possible in the House) to prevent moves to annex Texas years before.

Answer 2

it's b. sectionalism
Wilmot Proviso was a rider on a bill to appropiate funds to the Post Mexican war that would prevent slavery being legal in any territories acquired by the US in the conflict.
many historians believe that this was the first anti slavery incident in Congress (or at a national) that eventually led up to secession and the Civil War.

Answer 3

Probably B, since secession didn't happen until Lincoln was elected.