This is what Mexico USED to look like, before the Mexican-American War in the 1840s. This war was just one episode, albeit a major one, in America's development into a country that stretched "from sea to shining sea."
This week, we'll take a look at America's growing pains in the 1800s. From an infant nation hugging the eastern seaboard of North America to a voracious teenage country hungry for even more territory, the United States grew exponentially in the mid-19th century. Here's what you'll need to turn in this week:
1.) Watch all Monterey Institute Unit 4, Chapter 11, Lessons 32-33 presentations.
2.) Complete all "Consider This" short-response questions for the above-mentioned Lessons. (Due Thursday, 11/17)
a.) Lesson 32 - John O'Sullivan Editorial
b.) Lesson 32 - The Mexican-American War
c.) Lesson 32 - Walter Colton Diary
d.) Lesson 33 - Henry "Box' Brown
e.) Lesson 33 - THe Ostend Manifesto
3.) Answer the following free-response question as a comment on this blog (this question appeared on the 2000 APUSH exam) by Friday, 11/18:
"Assess the moral arguments and political actions of those OPPOSED to the spread of slavery in the context of TWO of the following:
*Missouri Compromise of 1820
*Mexican-American War
*Compromise of 1850
*Kansas-Nebraska Act"
4.) "American Pageant" Ch. 17 Guidebook - Due Wed., 11/16
5.) Zinn, "A People's History of the U.S." Chapter 8 Questions - Due Wed., 11/16
6.) Read Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" (on my webpage); this was Thoreau's treatise on an American citizen's obligation to protest his government's wrongful actions, and an explanation on his willingness to be imprisoned because of his refual to pay a tax in support of the Mexican-American War. As you read it, answer the following questions with well-thought-out responses (Due Fri., 11/18):
a.) Thoreau believes that people should not participate in injustice but that they do not have to actively promote a more just world. What is the difference between these two concepts, and why does Thoreau make this moral distinction?
b.) Is Thoreau's conception of civil disobedience compatible with democratic government? Why or why not?
c.) What is Thoreau's opinion on wealth and consumption? Why does he say that the rich are less likely to practice civil disobedience?
d.) What might Thoreau think about the role of government in today's society (in particular, what might he think about the modern welfare state?)?
e.) Is compromise on moral issues a necessary part of living with other people?
f.) How does Thoreau justify the moral need for civil disobedience? What principles does he rely on in his justification?
g.) Would you describe Thoreau as optimistic or pessimistic about people's ability to improve the world? Explain.
*Though I will not require it over the Thanksgiving break, you may wish to take a "preview" look at the upcoming chapters in "American Pageant" and Monterey Institute's website if you wish to be successful on the next exam. The "American Pageant" guidebooks for Chapters 18-21 are already on my website, and you KNOW what will be required from the Monterey Institute website for the next few chapters. We will move VERY fast after Thanksgiving in order to be through the Civil War by the winter holidays. The workload won't lessen, though...
12 comments:
In the Mexican-American War many people opposed the war because they didn’t find a reason for the war in the first placed. Others though opposed the war because they thought it was an extension of the southern slave territory. A handful of antislavery Congressmen voted against all war measures. They voted against supplying arms and men for the war. People also morally argued saying that war was unjust and unholy.
In the Compromise of 1850, which consisted of five bills being passed, California wanted to become a free state but it would throw off the balance in the U.S. Senate. The government allowed California to enter as a free state and New Mexico and Utah were each allowed to use popular sovereignty to decide the issue of slavery. The slave trade was also abolished in the District of Columbia. The abolitionists during this time fought harder than any other time, especially after the Fugitive Slave Act was induced. Many of them argued that there should be no fine for federal officials if they didn’t catch runaways because no the runaway slaves had a fewer chance of excaping.
The Kansas/Nebraska Act- The people that opposed this act believed that this act opens up the way for Kansas to join as an slave state, which is not permitted according to the Missouri Compromise. Another thing which they argued was the fact that allowing Kansas to be permitted as a slave state, would restrict the settlement of the land. Mainly because they felt that people would not life in areas where slavery is allowed. And the opponents were mainly anti-slavery Whigs.
Mexican-American War- Many opponents of the spread for slavery were Whigs, yet again. They totally opposed the war because they argued that industrialization should be the reason for growth of the country and not through the growth of land. Many of them wrote about their opposition in newspapers, like the whigs national newspaper- the national intelligenizer. And they also joined hands with Democrats to vote for overwhelmingly for the war resolution.
Prior to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, there was no set law that would determine a state to be a free or slave state. However, the 22 states that currently made up the U.S were evenly distributed as 11 free and 11 slave states. But, with the Missouri territory finally being accepted to the Union, the debate on the two factions rose. As the aggression became heated, it was time for a Compromise. The Missouri Compromise came about, which declared Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state. This settled the dispute temporarily and the power of Congress was still kept in balance. Also, the Missouri Compromise stated that all of the territories north of the southern boundary of Missouri, (excluding Missouri) would be Free states, and the territories below the boundary would be considered slave states. Although this suppressed the agitation and uprising among the legislators, it seemed to be prolonging the inevitable.
30 years after the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the issue of land and slavery stared into the eyes of Congress, yet again. Washington D.C became an intense moral argument with the issue of slavery. In addition, as new territories like California, Utah, and New Mexico was acquired by the U.S, admitting states to the Union began to take place. California’s residents wanted California to become a free state, which had Pro-slavery in a knot. Prior to California, the number of slave and Free States were equal in number. However, the admission of California into a Free State will create an imbalance of representation and power in Congress and favor the North. Compromise was needed in order to preserve the Union. With that being said, the Missouri Compromise of 1850 was enacted. The compromise consisted with the admission of California as a free state, and the citizens of New Mexico and Utah would decide on whether they wanted to be admitted as a slave or Free State. Also, it was morally wrong for the Capital of the United States to trade and promote slavery; it ruined the image of the U.S. Therefore, Washington D.C abolished the slave trade, but still permitted slavery. In order to prevent the aggression of slave-state legislators, due to California, the Missouri Compromise also consisted of the Fugitive Slave Law. The Fugitive Slave Law was a law that ordered citizens to capture slaves and return them to their owners and more officers would enforce the Fugitive Slave Law. Also, slaves were not given a trial by jury, instead, they were taken to a commissioner who would be paid $10 if they deemed a slave a fugitive, and $5 if they were free. The law destroyed any dream of freedom that the African American slaves had in the North. The use of the Underground Railroad and abolitionists were at an all-time high in the 1850s. The law came into Northern slave affairs and abolitionists enacted some individual laws in the North to aid and protect the African slaves in response to the Fugitive Slave Act.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was created to bring in Missouri as a state. There was only one condition that they had to agree to before they let Missouri become a start, and that was slavery. Missouri was allowed to stay a slave state as long as everything south of it was free. This wouldn’t have been an option if there was not anyone in the government who opposed slavery.
Mexican-American War was a big battle between America and Mexico over many things, slavery being just a portion of this battle. They were fighting over the land of California, and wither or not it should be considered a slave state, if America won.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a temporary solution to the increasingly pressing issue of slavery. The country was divided, antislavery and proslavery. The question was how to satisfy both the antislavery party, who were generally located in the north, and the proslavery, generally located in the south, without upsetting the delicate balance of power in Congress. At the time, one of the main arguments for the antislavery side was that slavery deprived poor whites the opportunity to acquire any prospects whatsoever, for their potential paying jobs were given to the more cost efficient slaves. And still it was ever the concern of balance between slave and free states. And so, the Missouri Compromise was settled on, which provided that every new state above the southern border of Missouri, exempting Missouri, would be admitted as fee states and all lower than that border would be admitted as fee states. So the antislavery party was pacified, and thus the slavery problem was temporarily solved.
Another arising of an identical problem came in the form of the Mexican-American war. Thought it primarily began as an attempt to attain the California territory which was, at the time, owned by Mexico, it developed as the war progressed into a question of morality and, of course, slavery. The morality of slavery was always a concern, though sometimes more than others. The main concern of the Mexican-American war, however, was that the gain of the territory would once again throw the scales of balance between north and south, antislavery and proslavery. Antislavery advocates typically opposed the war on the basis that it was being fought solely to acquire land meant to become slave states. The question of morality was, obviously, still there in many minds, though. As it would happen, the lines of the Civil war had already been drawn quite deeply in the sand by the Mexican-American war, and still the argument of slavery would eventually have to be permanently resolved, an occurrence which would not happen until after the bloodshed of the Civil War.
Anti-slavery advocates of the time feared that as settlers moved West into the newly gained Louisiana purchase territory, so too would slave owners looking to capitalize on the lucrative lands of the West for plantations. By this time there was already a regional divide between pro and anti-slavery advocates for the fact that the Southern economy relied so heavily on slave labor and that Northerners recognized the practice as unequal and immoral. Locked in a congressional tie the stalemate was broken by the Missouri Compromise. Though the Missouri itself was permitted to be a slave state, the compromise stipulated that no slave state would be admitted North of the coordinates 36,30’. This was not the complete victory abolitionist hoped for but still dealt a crushing blow to expanding slave owners who now were unable to spread to the unorganized territory of the Northhwest. The abolitionist had successfully won a pivotal battle for what many of them believed were the Constitutional and unalienable rights for blacks to be free.
Another case of abolitionists standing for the cause of eradicating slavery was the stand they took during and after the Mexican War. During the Clay-Polk election there was strong anti-slavery sentiment among Americans even going so far as being a major issue of presidency. Some pro-slavery mudslinging was used during the campaign was used such as the phrase “Polk,Slavery, and Texas or Clay, Union, and Liberty” and the rumor that Polk branded slaves and sent them to the market. Although somewhat untruthful the rumors showed abolitionists had made their mark on the thinking of the American people. After the Mexican-American war abolitionists began to clamor that the war was fought to expand slavery of the South’s “slavocracy”. This point was argued once again in congress, and finally bending to the will of anti-slavery advocates the Wilmot Proviso was created, stipulating that no slave state would be made from the newly acquired Mexican land. The abolitionists were able to once again strike a heavy blow to the practice of slavery.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was established for a effective way to determine which states shall be considered slaves states and which are to be 'free' states. This compromise was needed because of the different view points in Congress on keeping the balance of the power between the North and the South and also the moral or immoral issue of slavery.
During the Mexican-America War, America was split in two. One side opposed the war and the other was greatly for it. For the opposed, they believed the war was a greedy action taken by the government to expand its territory and also the land allowed to own slaves. Many different anti-slavery abolitiontists as well as groups, publicized their feelings toward the war through publications such as newspapers, letters and satirical poems. For the supporters of the war, they tried to voice their opinions but ultimately it didn't really affect the outcome. All the power was in Congress, and the majority of congressmen supported this war.
Mexican-American War
The Mexican-American War was opposed by a number of anti-slavery advocates because of the belief that the Mexican-American War was merely an attempt at the expansion of slavery. Anti-slavery advocates looked down upon this possibility because, with the addition of an additional slave state, the balance between anti-slavery advocates and slave states would be unbalanced and slavery, the cause for which they had fought for, would have strengthened and expanded.
Politically, anti-slavery advocates, attacked the war, naming it a war with the sole intention of benefiting slave owners and Southerners and weakening the North. Morally, the war was looked down upon by a number of abolitionists, particularly Joshua Giddings, who was at that time a prominent opponent to slavery and led a group of dissenters in Washington D.C. According to Giddings, the war with Mexico was “an aggressive, unholy and unjust war”.
Missouri Compromise of 1820
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 both benefited the North and South, although both factions were acutely displeased. Both factions sought to maintain balance between each other and did so by implementing and creating the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Abolitionists, who saw slavery as an act that infringes morals, sought to maintain power over the South. Once the compromise was created and enforced, politicians such as Thomas Jefferson referred to the compromise as the starting point of a domino effect that would eventually and inevitably lead to the split of the North and South. The compromise only pushed the slavery issue aside instead of solving it completely.
Post a Comment