war with mexico and civil war?

Question

What were the major events and political developments after the war with Mexico through the election of 1860 that turned the nation toward civil war?

PLEASE HELP

Answer 1

(Most of your "list of events" immediately follow the #s below, but I hope the summaries and links fill in the key details to understanding HOW these events led to war.)

First note that much of the push toward secession and so to the Civil War, was a result of the debate over how SLAVERY would be handled in the new territories acquired as a result of the war with Mexico. The other main issue concerned runaway slaves and the Fugitive Slave Law.

1) Wilmot Proviso, 1846-7 [never passed]

Northern "Free Soilers" favored this proposed Congressional BAN on slavery in the territories (other than Texas which was already a state) gained in the Mexican War. (It would have been much like the ban on slavery included in the old Northwest Ordinance of 1787.) The South very much disagreed!

Here is the brief text of the proviso:

"Provided that, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted"
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/wilmot.htm

Another important outcome of this effort -- in 1848, the "Barnburner" part of the Democratic Party in New York State BOLTS from the state party when it refuses to endorse the Wilmot Proviso -- and leads organizing the "Free Soil Party" (joining together with the "Conscience Whigs" opposed to slavery) which will later merge with former Whigs as the other major component of the new "Republican" Party in 1854.

2) 'doctrine' of "popular [or 'squatter'] sovereignty"

The term was first used by Democratic Presidential candidate, Northern Democrat, Lewis Cass during the 1848 campaign. It was a "compromise" position, in response to the Wilmot Proviso, arguing that CONGRESS should not legislate, but that the inhabitants of the territories should make up their own mind on the matter.

In popular thought the term tends to be associated with Illinois Senator STEPHEN DOUGLAS (Democrat), many even thinking he coined the term, because he soon became THE champion of this approach in Congress
http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/archives/1912/s/squatter_sovereignty.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty

3) Compromise of 1850 (note esp. Fugitive Slave Law)

First proposed by Henry Clay as ONE act, but failed to gain enough support. After Clay's death, Stephen Douglas split it into FIVE separate statutes and through weeks of negotiations gained enough support to pass each separately in September.
The acts called for the admission of California as a "free state," provided for a territorial government for Utah and New Mexico, established a boundary between Texas and the United States, called for the abolition of slave trade in Washington, DC, and amended the Fugitive Slave Act.

Transcript of Clay's Resolution and the five bills:
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=27&page=transcript

More info
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/spcl/excat/douglas3.html

** The Fugitive Slave Law became a PARTICULAR bone of contention. It required Northern states to strongly support efforts of Southern slave owners who came to claim (or sent representatives --'slave hunters'-- to claim) runaways. But it provided NO protection against false claims, and a financial incentive for judges to decide in favor of the slave holder claims. In the North, many NON-abolitionists were upset at this heavy-handed approach, and were distressed at the sight of (claimed) runaways being dragged away. Several Northern states fired back with "personal liberty laws" that sought to restrain slave claims, sometimes nearly to the extent of preventing the return of ANY claimed runaways. This response incensed the South (not just as a practical matter, but as another abolitionist attack on their honor.)

4) KANSAS - Nebraska Act, 1854

To 'settle' the issue of how Kansas and Nebraska territories should be organized, on the way to statehood, Stephen Douglas finally managed to pass this bill, based on his "popular sovereignty" solution. It included RESCINDING the Missouri Compromise of 1820, in many Northern minds

This led to --
5) collapse of Whig Party, Republican Party formed (1854)

After several years of struggle, the Northern & Southern wings of the Whig Party split over Kansas-Nebraska. In the North, there were a few alternatives for former Whigs, but the newly organized Republican Party prevailed -- adding also a number of "Free Soil" Democrats.

The Republican Party was not "abolitionist" but "Free Soil" (though many in the South would not recognized the distinction), in that they did NOT advocate federal attempts to legislate the end of slavery where it existed, but to prevent its SPREAD to the territories. (For many, the hope was that this 'containment' strategy would cause slavery to wither and die, eventually ended by laws in the slave states themselves... similar to what had happened in the North.) The fact that it was a "sectional" party --with no real Southern support-- particularly troubled Southerners, who assumed such a group would, if it ever gained power, move to OUTLAW slavery. A strong showing by the Republican Presidential candidate in 1856 led some Southerners to suggest they would secede rather than EVER accept a "Black Republican" President.

Text of the Kansas- Nebraska Act
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kanneb.htm
explanation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_A._Douglas#Kansas-Nebraska_1854


6) "Bleeding Kansas" / Border Wars (mainly 1855 -58)
(and beating of Charles Sumner)

Another consequence of Kansas-Nebraska -- Northern settlers flooded the Kansas Territory, but Southerners from Missouri --many of them "border ruffians" who only crossed the border to vote or to harass the anti-slave population, not to settle. This led to struggles over competing legislatures and then proposed constitutions.

Northern Democrat and U.S. President Franklin Pierce generally sided with the SOUTHERN position on this and other sectional controversies. Buchanan (from Pennsylvania) continued this approach when he took office.

Key confrontations
"Wakarusa War" Nov-Dec 1855
Sack of Lawrence, May 1856 -->
Pottawatomie Massacre, May 1856 (by John Brown & sons -- see #10 below)
Marais des Cygnes Massacre, May 1858
http://www.kshs.org/exhibits/territorial/territorial4.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2952.html


In the midst of all this in May 1856, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner delivered his "Crime Against Kansas" speech (against the results of the Kansas-Nebrasda Act). His strong rheto4ic against Senator Butler of South Carolina led Butler's cousin Preston to violently attack Sumner. This episode galvanized Northern AND Southern sentiment
http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/Willis/Civil_War/documents/Crime.html
http://www.assumption.edu/ahc/Kansas/default.html

7) Dred Scot Decision, 1857

Immediately after Buchanan's inauguration, the Supreme Court, controlled by Southern justices, made a wide-ranging decision in the case of Dred Scott, a slave who was claiming his freedom based on extended stays in a FREE territory and state. The court ruled that blacks could not even BE citizens of the U.S. (though they could be citizens of a state) and so had no right to sue in federal court. At that point they should have thrown the case out, but instead went on to rule that Congress had NO power to prohibit slavery in U.S. territories (nor could Congress give territory residents the right to decide the matter). And finally, Missouri (the state of Scott's origin) was NOT obligated to recognize the laws of Illinois or the Wisconsin Territory by which Scott was considered free, once he was returned to Missouri.

This decision effectively ruled anything like the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, would disallow a CORE tenet of the Republican Party

http://www.landmarkcases.org/dredscott/background3.html
Text:
http://www.landmarkcases.org/dredscott/arguments.html
http://www.landmarkcases.org/dredscott/majority.html
http://www.landmarkcases.org/dredscott/opinion.html

Discussion:
http://www.yale-university.com/ynhti/curriculum/units/2004/1/04.01.02.x.html
http://law.jrank.org/pages/13612/Scott-v-Sandford.html
http://www.hrcr.org/docs/US_Constitution/dscott3.html

Don Fehrenbacher *The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics* (1978) [Pulitzer Prize winning book]

8) Lecompton Constitution - Douglas vs. President Buchanan

A pro-slavery Constitution, the result of a bogus election (which anti-slavery settlers mostly boycotted), was accepted as legitimate by Buchanan. Stephen Douglas insisted that the election was NOT fair, not a true exercise of 'popular sovereignty', and broke with the President over it. Southerners were enraged at Douglas, their former champion, and a movement began to oppose his expected nomination for the 1860 Presidential race.

(see "Bleeding Kansas" links)


9) Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 1858

Two results
a) Lincoln, the Illinois Republicans' choice for the Senate seat held by Douglas, became a national figure as news reports of the debates spread across the nation. (The Senator would be chosen by the state legislature -- Republicans made huge gains after the debates, but seats NOT up for election favored Douglas, who kept his seat.)

b) Douglas was pressured to defend his "popular sovereignty" idea, since it appeared Dred Scott had rules it out. In his response at the Freeport Illinois debate --thence called the "Freeport Doctrine" -- Douglas claimed that the people COULD keep slavery out if they wished, no matter what any court had said, simply by voting NOT to provide the police support slavery needed.

"Freeport Doctrine" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeport_Doctrine
http://militaryhistory.wetpaint.com/page/Battle+Of+Gettysburg?t=anon
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/82-1/Weinberg.pdf
TEXT - http://www.bartleby.com/251/22.html


10) (Harper's Ferry Raid of John Brown, October 1859

John Brown, veteran of Bleeding Kansas, attempted to start a slave revolt by seizing the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry, Virginia.

Though he was caught, tried and executed, and the Republican Party condemned his acts, the South was horrified, and the tendency of some in the North to turn him into a hero only increased fears of what the North WANTED to do, and what a Republican Presidential victory would mean

irony -- the man sent to put down Brown's revolt is Robert E Lee

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2940.html
http://www.wvculture.org/History/jnobrown.html


11) Presidential Election of 1860

a) Democratic Convention
Douglas comes with a strong majority, but an organized group of Southern Democratic "fire-eaters" (early proponents of secession) works to derail him. They present the "Alabama Platform" (formulated by William Yancey of Alabama) which demanded strong support for slavery, in effect RULING OUT the "Freeport Doctrine". When their platform fails, they walk out on the convention. Eventually, the party chooses Douglas, but much of the South organizes its OWN convention and chooses its own candidate
http://www.nps.gov/nhl/DOE_dedesignations/Yancey.htm
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/aladem.html

b) election of Lincoln
Douglas would very likely have won the election, but the split in the Democratic Party virtually hands the election to Lincoln, the Republican candidate. Long before the fall elections this likely outcome is very clear. Various Southern Democrats loudly threaten secession if Lincoln should win, warning the North NOT to vote for him.

12) "secession winter"

When Lincoln wo, those who had threatened secession sprang into action, beginning in South Carolina (where the secessionists held a political majority, though they were much over-represented). After the first few states seceded, they sent emissaries to other slave states to urge them to join in seceding. (Despite post-war claims to the contrary, the secession documents of these states, and the communications of their emissaries, place a VERY STRONG emphasis on this action being taken to preserve SLAVERY.)

The rest is mostly the story of ATTEMPTS at Compromise, doomed to fail, because the South essentially demanded the Republicans repudiate any sort of free soil position. Lincoln, while willing to give strong assurances that (as he had repeatedly said) he would not interfere with slavery where it existed (even to supporting a Constitutional amendment that the Federal government could NEVER do so... only a state could decide), would not repudiate the Party. Meanwhile Buchanan, a lame duck, opposed secession as illegal, but thought the federal government had NO authority to do anything about it.

(Some, including a prior answer to this question, have accused Buchanan of conspiring with the secessionists, and so of being a traitor. The evidence does not support this conspiracy theory. WEAK he was, but not treasonous.)

Declarations of Causes of Seceding States - South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html

On the arguments of these states' emissaries to other states, see Charles Dew *Apostles of Secession* (2002)
http://www.upress.virginia.edu/books/dew.html
http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/22/bib/010422.rv125315.html
http://fortyrounder.blogspot.com/2007/02/essay-on-apostles-of-disunion-by.html

Answer 2

Here's something, though it doesn't have much to do with the Mexican War.

You have to first understand that it wasn't a series of misunderstandings that got out of hand. The secession of the Confederate states was a plan that was many years in the making. The secessionist leaders began their plans in the early 1850's, and while they certainly hopes they could pull it off without war, they prepared for that every step of the way.

SLAVERY WAS THE PRIMARY ISSUE THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR. "State's rights" in the South were only important insofar as it involved the right to own slaves. Revisionist historians like to use "state's rights" as a way to defend the actions of secessionists, but outside of slavery secessionists cared very little about state's rights. If you go to the books, the newspapers, the magazines, and the speeches OF THE TIME, like I have for the last 30 years, and ignore all the dirivitive crap written 100-150 years after the war, you'll find that slavery was THE issue, in the North and in the South. What right did the South fight to protect? Slavery. What were the leaders of the North trying to stop slavery. The rest were minor differences. Go to the sources, and you'll see. Yes, they used the term "states rights" from time to time, because that was the polcitically correct terminology for saying they wanted to keep their slaves. What right were they almost exclusively talking about when talking about state's rights? Slavery. Sometimes it would be thrown in with "opression" and "economics" but it always came down to slavery.

No slavery - no war, period.

You had two very opposite groups involved in this conflict. The slave states were run largely by a group of secessionists, although they weren't publicly admitting that in the 1850's. They desperately wanted to maintian their hold on the power they currently enjoyed at that time - they had enough votes in congress to demand compromise after compromise and to control most legislation. They used that power to repeal the Missouri Compromise and allow the reintroduction of slavery into areas it had previously been prohibited. They are occasionally portrayed as the downtrodden oppressed, under the thumb of the terrible North, but nothing could be further from the truth. They were strong, and they wanted to keep that power, lest their ability to promote and maintain slavery be taken from them

Meanwhile the North was largely anti-slavery, that sentiment was growing almost daily, and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was taken as a betrayal by most people of the North. While those who favored immediate abolition were not the majority, those who demanded the stop to the expansion of slavery were.

The repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Acts so enraged and worried the North that adversaries gathered together to form a new political party, the Republican Party, in 1854. They considered the repeal as a betrayal of trust and a surrender to the slave powers (see the notice at the end) To those who say that slavery wasn't the main issue, keep in mind that the platform of the Republican Party (formed by Whigs, free-Soilers, Know-Nothings, Free Democrats, and other parties that dissolved their past affiliations in order to form the Republican Party) was primarily to stop the spread of slavery immediately and to eliminate it from the coutry as quickly as possible - it's why the Party was formed, and the evidence that slavery was the issue in the North as well as the South is plain in the fact that the Republican Party won the Presidency and majority control of government just 6 years after it was formed!

This signaled a ticking clock to the secessionists, because they saw the anti-slavery senitment gaining strenth and the Republican Party gaining power throughout the 1850's. They new that in 1860 their hold on power would be gone, and they had to act. They knew as far back as 1857 that they would be taking these steps a few years later. On March 4, 1857 Jefferson Davis took the oath of the Senate, vowing to uphold the Union and the Constitution with his very life, meanwhile he and other secessionist leader continues their plans of rebellion.

During the late 1850's President Buchanan and the other secessionist leaders and slavery sympathizers worked their plan. Arms were sold to secessionists, forts in the South were emptied of arms and troops, the Army and Navy were spread thin and wide so they could not respond in an emergency. The propoganda campain to keep the southern people in fear of the North and unsettled continued.

Lincoln's election in 1860 was used by the secessionists to rally support of the people, and called "the last straw." The funny thing is that Lincoln, of all the possible Republicans, was the last person they had to fear, because Lincoln had already said many times over that he would not mess with slavery where it existed. But who the candidate was didn't matter - it was time for the secessionists to act before it was too late, so they portrayed Lincoln as a radical abolitionist and an enemy of the South. Truth is, it could have been anybody. The Confederacy was planned a loong time before anyone ever heard of Abraham Lincoln in the South.

When the North refused to accept secession, and the North wouldn't make the first agressive move, the Confederacy fired - on a fort manned mostly by musicians with few weapons.

So, was it possible to end slavery without War? I'm not saying there weren't ways, but first you have to know that there were people plotting treason and betraying their oaths for years prior to 1860, and that they were not going to stop short of their goals.

The only thing that would have prevented war would be the acceptance of slavery by the United States and/or the surrender of the United States of all the states and territories it held that called itself the Confederacy. Since that would not have ended slavery, then the answer is that there was no alternative but to have some kind of conflict, some kind of war.

Slavery was the issue, it was the reason. It was a calculated plan by those who chose to protect slavery by betraying their countrymen and turning traitor - to protect slavery, and not some mythical idea of "state's rights" because the only right they cared about was the right to enslave another race.

MORE EVIDENCE THAT SLAVERY WAS THE ISSUE

Below is one of the annoucements of a meeting (1854) called to form this new party. This was from Michigan, and was one of many such announcement and meetings. It's a fascinating story:

"TO THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN

A great wrong has been perpetrated. The slave power of this country has triumphed. Liberty is trampled underfoot. The Missouri compromise, a solemn compact, entered into by our fathers, has been violated, and a vast territory dedicated to freedom has been opened to slavery.
This act, so unjust to the North, has been perpetrated under circumstances which deepen its perfidy [treachery]. An administration placed in power by Northern votes has brought to bear all the resources of executive corruption in its support.
Northern Senators and representatives, in the face of overwhelming public sentiment of the North, expressed in the proceedings of public meeting and solemn remonstrances [protest], without a single petition in its favor on their table, and not daring to submit this great question to the people, have yielded to the seductions of executive patronage, and, Judas-like, betrayed the cause of liberty; while the South, inspired by a dominant and grasping ambition, has, without distinction of party, and with a unanimity almost entire, deliberately trampled under foot the solemn compact entered into in the midst of a crisis threatening the peace of the Union, sanctioned by the greatest names of our history, and the binding forces of which has, for a period of more than thirty years, been recognized and declared by numerous acts of legislation. Such an outrage upon liberty, such a violation of plighted faith, cannot be submitted to. The great wrong must be righted, or there is no longer a North in the councils of the nation. The extension of slavery, under the folds of the American flag, is a stigma upon liberty. The indefinite increase of slave representation in Congress is destructive to that equality between freemen which is essential to the permanency of the Union.
The safety of the Union -- the rights of the North -- the interests of free labor -- the destiny of a vast territory and its untold millions for all coming time -- and finally, the high aspirations of humanity for universal freedom, all are involved in the issue forced upon the country by the slave power and its plastic Northern tools.
In view, therefore, of the recent action of Congress upon this subject, and the evident designs of the slave power to attempt still further aggressions upon freedom -- we invite all our fellow citizens, without reference to former political associations, who think that the time has arrived for a union at the North to protect liberty from being overthrown and downtrodden, to assemble in mass convention on Thursday, the 6th of July, next, at 4 o’clock, P.M., at Jackson, there to take such measures as shall be thought best to concentrate the popular sentiment of this State against the aggression of the slave power."

This meeting was attended by people from all parties, and they formed an election ticket of Free Democrats, Free Soilers, Whigs, and more - now all calling themselves Republican.

Zachariah Chandler, a devout Whig, said:

"Misfortunes make strange bedfellows. I see before me Whigs, Democrats and Free-Soilers, all mingling together to rebuke a great national wrong. I was born a Whig; I have always lived a Whig and hope to die fighting for some of the Whig doctrines. But I do not stand here as a Whig. I have laid aside party to rebuke treachery."