Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
In February 1849 a Representative from Virginia, William Preston, introduced a bill to organise the whole Mexican cession into one state. It would be admitten into Union, without any mention of the peculiar institution. It was quite obvious that the new state would not permit slavery, but the omission of the official acknowledgement of it would save honor of pro-slavery congressmen.
The bill attracted wide support among southerners from both parties and was predicted to pass easily in the House of Representatives. And then the hopeful prospect was destroyed: a free-soiler from NY attached an amendment to it, which prohibited slavery in the new state. As a result, the Preston bill failed, receiving not a single aye.
Why did the free-soiler attach the amendment, if the new state was to be "free" anyway? It looks like his aim was to prevent any compromise between sections?
Very interesting observation, Bobbie. My knowledge of the situation is too scanty to comment, but I will counter-observe.
Quote:
It was quite obvious that the new state would not permit slavery...
Not to me. Would you elaborate, please?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Very interesting observation, Bobbie. My knowledge of the situation is too scanty to comment, but I will counter-observe.
Not to me. Would you elaborate, please?
ole
Thank you, Ole.
The future status of the state-to-be was quite predictable, because "Nature's laws of climate, soil and population prohibited it" (quote from Aleck Stephens). People living there were in majority opposed to the institution (and to any settlement of non-White people in general), as Whigs believed, and the proximate future would prove (1850- state convention in California and popular sovereignty in New Mexico & Utah).
In February 1849 a Representative from Virginia, William Preston, introduced a bill to organise the whole Mexican cession into one state. It would be admitten into Union, without any mention of the peculiar institution. It was quite obvious that the new state would not permit slavery, but the omission of the official acknowledgement of it would save honor of pro-slavery congressmen.
The bill attracted wide support among southerners from both parties and was predicted to pass easily in the House of Representatives. And then the hopeful prospect was destroyed: a free-soiler from NY attached an amendment to it, which prohibited slavery in the new state. As a result, the Preston bill failed, receiving not a single aye.
Why did the free-soiler attach the amendment, if the new state was to be "free" anyway? It looks like his aim was to prevent any compromise between sections?
This situation was vastly complicated with many parties having many irons in the fire.
For example, the Virginian Representative you are speaking of here in early 1849 was very closely associated with the new President, Zachary Taylor. So closely that he was about to be made the new Secretary of the Navy right after Taylor was inaugurated in March of 1849.
As background to all this, we need to recall that there were 30 states at that time, exactly 15 "free" and 15 "slave" states. The question of the "next state" was a very hot one. Existing Mexican law in the new territory already made slavery illegal (just as it had in Texas when Texas was part of Mexico).
Taylor was trying to find a way to bring the new Mexican Cession area in as states without being first organized as territorial governments. Why? Because there was already a strong movement in the states to allow/block slavery in the Mexican Cession, and Taylor thought he could sidestep all the issues of Territorial Government and what the Federal government could or could not do by skipping that state and organizing the area as one or more states directly.
Different parties on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line had schemes for that. In some, the state or states would be free; in others, slave. Although the Mexican Cession was supposedly slave-free because of Mexican law, that had not stopped the American immigrants of the early part of the century from bringing slaves into Texas and bringing it into the Union as one (or potentially more) slave states.
I am not exactly sure where Preston stood on the slave issue for this area. He was a strong backer of Taylor and the Whigs, and may have been largely trying to avoid reopening the Wilmot Proviso mess. Taylor was. But as further background, Preston eventually was the man who introduced the "secret" resolution at the Virginia Convention to secede from the United States, supposedly because he believed it was inevitable at that point.
As to why the Free-Soiler added the amendment to the bill, there could be a host of reasons for it. He may have wanted to sabotage it. He may have just wanted clarity. He may have been playing to the crowd; he may have been stupid; he may have had a purpose we don't even guess at. One thing is sure, though: he wasn't alone. If he was the only one who cared about it, the amendment never would have made it out of committee or through the House.
It was only the next year when we had Southern congressmen coming to the White House to discuss secession with Zachary Taylor, and Taylor talking of leading an army South to hang traitors. That's the same year as the Compromise of 1850 that dealt with the same issues. The country was in the middle of a big mess, and I would guess you can only find out about this particular bit of history by digging deep into that tumultous time.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I am not exactly sure where Preston stood on the slave issue for this area. He was a strong backer of Taylor and the Whigs, and may have been largely trying to avoid reopening the Wilmot Proviso mess. Taylor was. But as further background, Preston eventually was the man who introduced the "secret" resolution at the Virginia Convention to secede from the United States, supposedly because he believed it was inevitable at that point.
I guess Preston was reconciled to the new state prospective becoming "free", though I can't prove it.
Quote:
As to why the Free-Soiler added the amendment to the bill, there could be a host of reasons for it. He may have wanted to sabotage it. He may have just wanted clarity. He may have been playing to the crowd; he may have been stupid; he may have had a purpose we don't even guess at. One thing is sure, though: he wasn't alone. If he was the only one who cared about it, the amendment never would have made it out of committee or through the House.
I've just been "digging deep" into the issue and found out the alleged "free-soiler" was in fact a Democrat from New York- William Collins. And indeed, he was not alone: his amendment was decided 91-87. I understand those congressmen (probably most or even all of them northern) who voted "yea"- since the anti-slavery amendment was proposed it would be awkward for the anti-slavery representatives not to support it. Nevertheless Mr. Collins is a mystery to me- I doubt in his will to gain popularity by this action, because he wasn't going to be a candidate in the next elections. I found his explanation from July 28, 1848 (discussion on "the bill to establish the territorial government of Oregon"), when he stated that the institution would exist in the territory until prohibited by the authority of the Congress. Maybe the reason he added the amendment in 1849 was quite similar: he didn't believe in the abolition of slavery by the popular sovereignty.
The future status of the state-to-be was quite predictable, because "Nature's laws of climate, soil and population prohibited it" (quote from Aleck Stephens). People living there were in majority opposed to the institution (and to any settlement of non-White people in general), as Whigs believed, and the proximate future would prove (1850- state convention in California and popular sovereignty in New Mexico & Utah).
Bobbie, I believe Aleck Stephens' statement to be accurate, but the same thing could have been said of Kansas and Nebraska. It didn't stop the slavocracy from trying to bring them in as slave states.
It is a puzzlement. You have the record. Everything else remains speculation, but a good topic for thinking out loud.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Bobbie, I believe Aleck Stephens' statement to be accurate, but the same thing could have been said of Kansas and Nebraska. It didn't stop the slavocracy from trying to bring them in as slave states.
Ole,
I think that the problem of Kansas was different from the Mexican cession in many respects.
Kansas bordered Missouri, which was a slave state- one of the arguments (sound or not) of pro-slavery people against "free" Kansas was that it would become a mecca for runaway slaves. Another argument was that slavery in Kansas was was vital to guarantee the continuance of the institution in their own state. Moreover, they had many land claims there. Proximity of the areas also encouraged Missourian ruffians to cross the border in order to "safeguard" Kansas, that is to cast ballots for pro-slavery delegates. Last but not least, the abolitionists were also to blame for the whole mess, as they organised some emigrant societies to transport anti-slavery settlers to Kansas, which galled the pro-slavery men.
One more thing, southern Democrats were so sure of the prospect of Kansas becoming a slave state that they used the issue during the last election campaign. Consent to the anti-slavery status of Kansas would be therefore a political disaster. The masses would treat it as a betrayal and a submission to the abolitionists.
The Mexican cession didn't border any slave state, so it wasn't going to encourage any slaves to escape from their owners and seek a refuge there. Without sound arguments it would be difficult for the supporters of the peculiar institution to attract wide attention.
...The Mexican cession didn't border any slave state, so it wasn't going to encourage any slaves to escape from their owners and seek a refuge there. Without sound arguments it would be difficult for the supporters of the peculiar institution to attract wide attention.
Not quite. The Mexican Cession bordered Texas, newly a member of the United States as a slave state. In fact, Texas had claimed that large parts of that Cession (stretching up to somewhere in the Wyoming/Montana/Idaho/Colorado area) were already part of Texas. I think that included Santa Fe. The US essentially bought them off in the late 1840s.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Tim,
you're right. I've just shown myself to be a geographical ignorant
Although I don't really believe in a possibility of Texans behaving like border ruffians, I would have to search for some proof. Maybe one argument could be that Texas, as a new state itself, didn't need to expand its institution to the new lands.
Slaves in Texas, to gain sanctuary in any territory, had to cross West Texas -- a most forbidding territory. I'll agree with Bobbie that the situation was different. Slavery was of little use in Kansas and of even less use in the New Mexico Territory.
In Missouri, slavery was concentrated along the river and down by the bootheel. There was little threat present in the potential for slaves to escape to sparsely settled Kansas.
But still, the slavocracy wanted the territories to enter the Union as slave states. Doesn't make much sense, does it? How on earth did they expect a slave state to remain a slave state if there were but a few slaves?
It has been argued that slaves were capable of more than picking cotton. That's quite true. I just can't see the wannabe aristocrat engaging in much beyond planting. Everyone else was engaging in low-type enterprise.
So. I don't know. As usual, just thinking out loud.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Statehood bill for Mexican cession 
from New York- William Collins. And indeed, he was not alone: his amendment was decided 91-87. I understand those congressmen (probably most or even all of them northern) who voted "yea"- since the anti-slavery amendment was proposed it would be awkward for the anti-slavery representatives not to support it. Nevertheless Mr. Collins is a mystery to me- I doubt in his will to gain popularity by this action, because he wasn't going to be a candidate in the next elections. I found his explanation from July 28, 1848 (discussion on "the bill to establish the territorial government of Oregon"), when he stated that the institution would exist in the territory until prohibited by the authority of the Congress. Maybe the reason he added the amendment in 1849 was quite similar: he didn't believe in the abolition of slavery by the popular sovereignty.
Linear Mode
