Restricted Debate The Non-Gadsden Purchase: A Major Cause of the Civil War

[uaskme]

Free-soil congressmen were aware of southern schemes to capture western mines for slavery. "As to California, I am equally clear," responded Oregon's well-traveled congressional delegate to a query by Horace Mann of Massachusetts, "California will always be a mining country, and wages will rage high. At present slave labor if California would be . . .profitable. . .And I have always been of the opinion, that wherever there is a mining country, if not in a climate uncongenial to slave labor, that species of labor would be profitable. That it would be in California mines, is evident. That these whole regions are filled with rich mines, is little less than certain, and that they can be run with slave labor is sure. Hence, were I a southern man and my property invested in slaves," he concluded, "I should consider the markets of New Mexico, Utah, and California, for slave labor, worthy of an honorable contest to secure." Mann himself surmised that "mines are the favorite sphere for slavery, as the ocean is for commerce."

The loss of the gold mines when California became a free state severely shocked many Southerners. At the Nashville disunion convention of 1850, for example, it was resolved that "California is peculiarly adapted for slave labor." Mississippi's Governor John A. Quitman, the slaveowning woodyard operator, cried to a special legislative session in 1850:

. . .The value of slaves depends upon the demand for their labor. The history of the cultivation of our great staples shows that this value is permanently enhanced by the opening of new fields of labor. The immense profits which have and still continue to reward well directed industry in the gold mines of California, exceed those which have ever flowed from mere labor, inexhaustible in extent and indefinite in duration. Had this wide field for investment been open to the slave labor of the Southern States, wages would have risen, and consequently the value of slaves at home would have been greatly enhanced. Many hundreds of millions of dollars would have been added to the capital of the Southern States. . .These estimates of pecuniary interest. . .are founded upon the fixed opinion of almost every well informed person among us.

If free-soil agitators had not interfered, complained a North Carolina congressman in 1850, Southerners would have been able to work the gold mines of California with their slaves and they would soon have secured it as a slave state.

Throughout the antebellum decade, Southerners mourned the loss of western mines. "We said, three years ago, in a public journal," wailed the Richmond Dispatch in 1852, "that California would be sure to remove every restriction that could be placed upon her by the general government; and that she would be the largest slaveholder of all the States.The thing seemed to us so palpable that we could not see how any man could doubt it. What makes Louisiana and Texas such large slaveholders?" asked the Dispatch. "Why, the remuneration received for slave labor. What makes any country a slaveholding country? The prospect of gain. And where can slave labor be so profitably employed as in the gold mines of California?. . The only way to develop the resources of a piece of gold property belonging to an individual," concluded the editor, "is to employ slaves." I want Cuba, I want TAMAULIPAS, POTOSI, and ONE of TWO OTHER MEXICAN [MINING] STATES,"raged Mississippi's Albert Gallatin Brown in 1858. "and I want them all for the same reason-for the planting or spreading of slavery." If slaves were excluded from territorial mines, moaned a Mobile citizen, as late as 1860, "it would present a case of monstrous injustice." Pointing to the mineral wealth in New Mexico, Arizona,and even, potentially, Kansas, the Charleston Mercury concluded: "The right to have property protected in the territory is not a mere abstraction without application or practical value. . When gold mines were discovered, slaveholders at the South saw that, with their command of labor, it would be easy at a moderate outlay to make fortunes digging gold. . . There is no vacation in the would in which slavery can be more useful and profitable than in mining," pp218-220 Industrial Slavery by Starobin

Starobin tells us the push during the 50s for Industrial Slavery. By 1860, about 5% of Slaves are used in Industrial Slavery. So, there was a lot of growth left on the table. Slaves were used in mining in the East. Calhoun owned a Gold mine in Dahlonega GA. Also push during the 50s using Slaves in building RRs and using them in steel production.

Studying this portion of the Gadsden Purchase, and reading Starobin's book have enlightened me. Helps to put the Story of the West together. Thanks to the OP for focusing on these, hardly ever discussed subjects.

 

[trice]

An absolutely marvelous link! A+!!!

This link identifies the $50 million piece as 125,000 square miles. Your other link says 120,000. Either is close enough for my purposes. Basically, 1/7th of the Louisiana Purchase.

Great work. It vitally demonstrates the Southern vision for empire.

Thanks!!!!

125,000 square miles is very low. You may like them for your purposes, but you should not use that number.

The actual Gadsden Purchase made (after the Senate reduced it) plus Baja California is about 90,000 miles. Looking at the red line on the map at the supplied link, it actually chops off part of what was purchased by Gadsden and is now part of New Mexico-Arizona. It does not seem in complete accord with the Marcy-Pierce lines.

That red line includes what looks like 80% of Coahuila (58,522 square miles). Estimate: 46,817 square miles.

By itself, that (the Gadsden Purchase plus Baja plus Coahuila) exceeds 125,000 square miles.

That does not include the area of Nuevo Leon (looks like another 20,000 square miles) and Tamaulipas (maybe 15-20,000 square miles) You also need to add more area for Chihuahua and Sonora (25-35,000 square miles?). In short, the map in the link provided seems to be for a total purchase of 200-250,000 square miles -- double the 125,000 square mile figure given. Any attempt to simply estimate the figures state by state and add them up will show this 125,000 square mile figure is wildly low and unusable for what you want to prove.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

125,000 square miles is very low. You may like them for your purposes, but you should not use that number.

The actual Gadsden Purchase made (after the Senate reduced it) plus Baja California is about 90,000 miles. Looking at the red line on the map at the supplied link, it actually chops off part of what was purchased by Gadsden and is now part of New Mexico-Arizona. It does not seem in complete accord with the Marcy-Pierce lines.

That red line includes what looks like 80% of Coahuila (58,522 square miles). Estimate: 46,817 square miles.

By itself, that (the Gadsden Purchase plus Baja plus Coahuila) exceeds 125,000 square miles.

That does not include the area of Nuevo Leon (looks like another 20,000 square miles) and Tamaulipas (maybe 15-20,000 square miles) You also need to add more area for Chihuahua and Sonora (25-35,000 square miles?). In short, the map in the link provided seems to be for a total purchase of 200-250,000 square miles -- double the 125,000 square mile figure given. Any attempt to simply estimate the figures state by state and add them up will show this 125,000 square mile figure is wildly low and unusable for what you want to prove.

Thank you for your input.

FYI, The Gadsden Purchase itself, as approved by Congress, turned out to be just a few square miles fewer than 30,000.

 

[trice]

Thank you for your input.

FYI, The Gadsden Purchase itself, as approved by Congress, turned out to be just a few square miles fewer than 30,000.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. You already know that I know the Gadsden Purchase ended up at about 30,000 square miles from our previous discussions, so why post this?

I said: "The actual Gadsden Purchase made (after the Senate reduced it) plus Baja California is about 90,000 miles." That comes out as 30,000 for the Gadsden Purchase plus 56,123 for Baja. Calling that 86,100 seems pretty darn close to "about 90,000", so it seems unlikely you are objecting to that. Is this just a quibble? If so, being off by about 4% in claiming "about 90,000" doesn't seem much of a problem.

I said: "By itself, that (the Gadsden Purchase plus Baja plus Coahuila) exceeds 125,000 square miles." That 86,100 plus the estimate I gave for Coahuila (46,817) totals 133,917 square miles, so it seems unlikely you are objecting to that.

To get to the actual number for the total defined by the red line on that map, you still need to add the areas for Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, Sonora and Chihuahua. It is very clear that the 125,000 number does not come close to the actual total in the largest proposal by the Pierce administration. No calculation you ever do using a square mileage figure that low can ever be accurate.

 

[Dave Wilma]

Is it any wonder, then, that a comparatively impoverished South Carolina led the way out of the Union --to say nothing of the value of all that ocean frontage in Baha, California?

That's a big leap. As we know there was more that went into secession than this deal.

California rejected slavery at statehood for the same reason that slavery was rejected in Oregon and Washington Territory. The settlers were free soil men and also wanted to exclude Africans, enslaved and free. That said, southern California had strong secessionist tendencies especially among the Californios whose large estates were suitable for slave labor. In 1861, California could have gone either way.

 

[trice]

For easy reference on any calculation of the actual area involved in the largest proposed purchase in the instructions sent to Gadsden:

The Actual Size column is in square miles.
The Est % column is the actual percentage in the 1st three cases (100% of the actual Gadsden Purchase and 100% of Baja California -- Baja Sur being part of Baja in 1853). The last 5 cases are my estimates based on eye-balling the map.
The Purchase column is the Actual Size * Est %

In order to get down to 125,000 square miles for $50,000,000 you need to reduce the last five lines (Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamualipas) by about 68,000 square miles. My estimates for those five might easily be a bit high -- or a bit low -- but there is simply no way the actual figure gets down to 125,000 and stays in accord with what the President and his Secretary of State wanted.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

For easy reference on any calculation of the actual area involved in the largest proposed purchase in the instructions sent to Gadsden:
View attachment 316939

The Actual Size column is in square miles.
The Est % column is the actual percentage in the 1st three cases (100% of the actual Gadsden Purchase and 100% of Baja California -- Baja Sur being part of Baja in 1853). The last 5 cases are my estimates based on eye-balling the map.
The Purchase column is the Actual Size * Est %

In order to get down to 125,000 square miles for $50,000,000 you need to reduce the last five lines (Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamualipas) by about 68,000 square miles. My estimates for those five might easily be a bit high -- or a bit low -- but there is simply no way the actual figure gets down to 125,000 and stays in accord with what the President and his Secretary of State wanted.

A very serviceable graph. Thank you.

In reply to your other question about the size of the Gadsden Purchase, I recall some different wording on your post to which I responded. i agree with the figure above.

 

[trice]

A very serviceable graph. Thank you.

In reply to your other question about the size of the Gadsden Purchase, I recall some different wording on your post to which I responded. i agree with the figure above.

So, you understand and we will not be seeing you claim that an obviously low number like 98,000 or 125,000 square miles was to be purchased for $50,000,000 under the instructions Gadsden received from the Pierce administration? Please answer yes or no so we can resolve any future contradictions by referring to your post.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

So, you understand and we will not be seeing you claim that an obviously low number like 98,000 or 125,000 square miles was to be purchased for $50,000,000 under the instructions Gadsden received from the Pierce administration? Please answer yes or no so we can resolve any future contradictions by referring to your post.

No.

Point me to the exact wording with an exact definition of what the $50,000,000 was for. While I appreciate your graph, there are too many variables.

This is a simple real estate matter. When you instruct someone to spend $50,000,000 on your behalf, you spell it out clearly. To this point I have seen nothing clear. The figures of 120,000-125,000 I have taken from others and I have cited those sources.

For my purpose it doesn't matter much if the size were 125,000 or 250,000 square miles. It was simply A LOT SMALLER than the LP, and it reflected how the South valued it.

Having answered your question exactly as you requested, please be exactly specific with me: For what exact property was the $50,000,000 to acquire?

 

[trice]

No.

Point me to the exact wording with an exact definition of what the $50,000,000 was for. While I appreciate your graph, there are too many variables.

This is a simple real estate matter. When you instruct someone to spend $50,000,000 on your behalf, you spell it out clearly. To this point I have seen nothing clear. The figures of 120,000-125,000 I have taken from others and I have cited those sources.

For my purpose it doesn't matter much if the size were 125,000 or 250,000 square miles. It was simply A LOT SMALLER than the LP, and it reflected how the South valued it.

Having answered your question exactly as you requested, please be exactly specific with me: For what exact property was the $50,000,000 to acquire?

This is, of course, evasive. You continue to try to minimize the number even when presented with evidence that the "sources" you refer to are absolutely too low and could not include the territory you, yourself, know were in the instructions. Edited

 

[trice]

No.

Point me to the exact wording with an exact definition of what the $50,000,000 was for. While I appreciate your graph, there are too many variables.

This is a simple real estate matter. When you instruct someone to spend $50,000,000 on your behalf, you spell it out clearly. To this point I have seen nothing clear. The figures of 120,000-125,000 I have taken from others and I have cited those sources.

Edited; personal attack

You started this thread using a map I pointed you to in another thread (Why "the South" did not get a railroad to the Pacific) in the Railroads and Steam Locomotives forum. You asked me if there was a map because I had posted to you the description sent by Secretary of State Marcy to Gadsden outlining the proposed purchases (see below). Then you started this thread using the map I had shown you how to get.

Here is how Secretary of State Marcy described the purchase options:

 

[James Lutzweiler]

This is, of course, evasive. You continue to try to minimize the number even when presented with evidence that the "sources" you refer to are absolutely too low and could not include the territory you, yourself, know were in the instructions. Please stop trying so hard to confuse the issue.

Straw.

I repeat: point us to the exact size for which the $50 million was offered.

James

 

[James Lutzweiler]

I will assume your memory has failed you because this is not true. You have already seen a clear and explicit description of what President Pierce and Secretary of State Marcy were proposing. I sent it to you back on July 1st.

You started this thread using a map I pointed you to in another thread (Why "the South" did not get a railroad to the Pacific) in the Railroads and Steam Locomotives forum. You asked me if there was a map because I had posted to you the description sent by Secretary of State Marcy to Gadsden outlining the proposed purchases (see below). Then you started this thread using the map I had shown you how to get.

Here is how Secretary of State Marcy described the purchase options:
View attachment 316989

I answered your question exactly as you requested with a yes or no. I then asked you for a specific answer to my question. I repeat:

For exactly how many square miles was the $50 million offered? The only way you can declare that 125,000 square miles is not right or "too low" is because you know what it was. So, what was it --in your view. And why? Explain your answer all that you wish, but please answer the question first, as I did at your request.

 

[John Fenton]

250,000 sq. mi.
President Pierce instructed the American minister to Mexico, James Gadsden, to purchase as much territory in northern Mexico as possible. Pierce's secretary of war, Jefferson Davis, who would later be the president of the Confederate States of America, was a strong supporter of a southern rail route to the West Coast.
Gadsden, who had worked as a railroad executive in South Carolina, was encouraged to spend up to $50 million to buy as much as 250,000 square miles.
Ultimately, Gadsden reached an agreement with Mexico to purchase about 30,000 square miles for $10 million.
McNamara, Robert. "Gadsden Purchase." ThoughtCo, May. 25, 2019, thoughtco.com/gadsden-purchase-1773322
At length, about the middle of November, the long-expected supplementary instructions arrived. Although bearing the date of October 22, and apparently written after Marcy had received Gadsden's report of the conferences of September 25 and October 2,12 they seem to have been based upon the sanguine confidential despatches of September 5 and October 3. They were brought with great secrecy by Christopher L. Ward, a Pennsylvania lawyer, apparently interested in the Garay grant, who had been solemnly enjoined not to enter Mexico with the written instructions, but to communicate their contents orally to the minister. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30234875.pdf
Gadsden met with Santa Anna on September 25, 1853. PresidentPierce sent verbal instructions for Gadsden through Christopher Ward, an agent for U.S. investors in the Garay project, giving Gadsden negotiating options ranging from $50 million for lower California and a large portion of northern Mexico to $15 million for a smaller land deal that would still provide for a southern railroad. Ward also lied to Gadsden...
... the U.S. Senate ratified a revised treaty on April 25, 1854. The new treaty reduced the amount paid to Mexico to $10 million and the land purchased to 29,670 square miles.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/gadsden-purchase

 

[John Fenton]

Also can someone explain the difference in the value of the dollar in 1803 vs 1853 ? Is it more or less and how does it factor in the price of the LP vs the GP ?

 

[thomas aagaard]

You can't compare the two situations.
Mexico selling of part of mexico.
France selling off overseas territory that they could not defend, when they are involved in a global conflict against Britain.
If Napoleon had not sold it, Britain would have occupied it anyway.

That surly effect the price. Also 50 years of inflation.

End result is that you can't compare the prices of the two situations.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

250,000 sq. mi.
President Pierce instructed the American minister to Mexico, James Gadsden, to purchase as much territory in northern Mexico as possible. Pierce's secretary of war, Jefferson Davis, who would later be the president of the Confederate States of America, was a strong supporter of a southern rail route to the West Coast.
Gadsden, who had worked as a railroad executive in South Carolina, was encouraged to spend up to $50 million to buy as much as 250,000 square miles.
Ultimately, Gadsden reached an agreement with Mexico to purchase about 30,000 square miles for $10 million.
McNamara, Robert. "Gadsden Purchase." ThoughtCo, May. 25, 2019, thoughtco.com/gadsden-purchase-1773322
At length, about the middle of November, the long-expected supplementary instructions arrived. Although bearing the date of October 22, and apparently written after Marcy had received Gadsden's report of the conferences of September 25 and October 2,12 they seem to have been based upon the sanguine confidential despatches of September 5 and October 3. They were brought with great secrecy by Christopher L. Ward, a Pennsylvania lawyer, apparently interested in the Garay grant, who had been solemnly enjoined not to enter Mexico with the written instructions, but to communicate their contents orally to the minister. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30234875.pdf
Gadsden met with Santa Anna on September 25, 1853. PresidentPierce sent verbal instructions for Gadsden through Christopher Ward, an agent for U.S. investors in the Garay project, giving Gadsden negotiating options ranging from $50 million for lower California and a large portion of northern Mexico to $15 million for a smaller land deal that would still provide for a southern railroad. Ward also lied to Gadsden...
... the U.S. Senate ratified a revised treaty on April 25, 1854. The new treaty reduced the amount paid to Mexico to $10 million and the land purchased to 29,670 square miles.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/gadsden-purchase

Thank you for a very pointed and specific reply to my question. Though McNamara did not provide an exact citation for his claim about what Pierce supposedly said, I will explore that claim. Perhaps others will join in that chase.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

Also can someone explain the difference in the value of the dollar in 1803 vs 1853 ? Is it more or less and how does it factor in the price of the LP vs the GP ?

You will find some useful answers to your question on the CWT thread captioned "Economic Question: Can anyone Help?"

 

[trice]

Straw.

I repeat: point us to the exact size for which the $50 million was offered.

James

I have posted the exact instructions of Secretary of State Marcy to Gadsden which describe clearly and exactly the territory to be acquired. I have posted them to you in this thread. I posted them to you back on July 1st in another thread -- which you acknowledged there. You used the map I pointed you to in the first thread in your own post to start this thread. Very clearly, you have been shown the exact territory to be acquired.

The $50 million dollars is for the largest proposal -- which is #4. Santa Anna refused all of the first four and went with the smallest proposal, #5, for $15 million. The Senate refused to accept that, reducing both the amount of land acquired and the price to be paid. Santa Anna agreed to that and the actual Gadsden Purchase for $10 million became treaty and law in the Spring of 1854.

You already have all the information you are saying you do not have.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

You can't compare the two situations.
Mexico selling of part of mexico.
France selling off overseas territory that they could not defend, when they are involved in a global conflict against Britain.
If Napoleon had not sold it, Britain would have occupied it anyway.

That surly effect the price. Also 50 years of inflation.

End result is that you can't compare the prices of the two situations.

Thanks for your post.

Of course you can compare the two, One can compare anything. You have simply identified a couple factors that correctly address the comparison in question. And that comparison is what this thread is all about. Instead of saying these cannot be compared, why don't you compare them and share your reflections with us?