Manifest Destiny Webquest - Part 6

Sectionalism & Secession

Directions: Answer the Questions below (in your packet, etc.) by reading the secondary source below. Explain your responses in detail. No response should be one (1) sentence. You must only use the reading to respond to the questions. Outside sources will not be given credit.

---

Part 6: Questions: According to the text:

1. What is sectionalism in the United States during the 19th century?
2. Why was it so important to Southerners to admit Missouri as a slave state?
3. What were the causes of the Mexican-American War?
4. What treaty ended the Mexican-American War?
5. What were the results of the Mexican-American War?
6. How did Mexican and American Indian culture impact the western United States?
7. Evaluate the Compromise of 1850, out of the five (5) components, which one do you believe had the greatest impact on the United States?
8. Complete the Venn Diagram on The North vs. The South

Overview

What is sectionalism? Sectionalism is the belief in the separating of areas into distinct cultural, political, and ideological regions. Sectionalism has always been a part of United States history. The colonies were separated and known as distinct regions (New England Colonies, Middle Colonies, Southern Colonies). As time passed through the early 19th century, the United States developed into three (3) distinct areas; The North, The South, and The West.

Sectional Tensions Increase

At the same time nationalism was unifying the country, sectionalism was threatening to drive it apart. Sectionalism is loyalty to the interests of your own region or section of the country, rather than to the nation as a whole. Economic changes had created some divisions within the United States. As you have seen, white Southerners were relying more on cotton and slavery. In the Northeast, wealth was based on manufacturing and trade. In the West, settlers wanted cheap land and good transportation. The interests of these sections were often in conflict.

Sectionalism became a major issue when Missouri applied for state-hood in 1817. People living in Missouri wanted to allow slavery in their state. At the time, the United States consisted of 11 slave states and 11 free states. Adding Missouri as a slave state would upset the balance of po0wer in Congress. The question of Missouri soon divided the nation.Let's explore each of these areas.

The Missouri Compromise

For months, the nation argued over admitting Missouri as a slave state or a free state. Debate raged in Congress over a proposal to ban slavery in Missouri. Angry Southerners claimed that the Constitution did not give Congress the power to ban slavery. They worried that free states could form a majority in Congress and ban slavery altogether. Meanwhile, Maine, which had been part of Massachusetts, also wanted statehood. Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House, saw a chance for compromise. He suggested that Missouri be admitted as a slave state and Maine as a free state. Congress passed Clay’s plan, known as the Missouri Compromise, in 1820. It kept the balance of power in the Senate between the slave states and free states. It also called for slavery to be banned from the Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36° 30', Missouri’s southern border.

Mexican American War

Diplomatic relations between Mexico and the United States became increasingly strained. U.S. involvement in California and Texas contributed to this tension. The Republic of Texas declared its independence from Mexico following the Texas Revolution of 1836, and, partly because Texas had been settled by a large number of Americans, there was a strong sentiment in both Texas and the United States for the annexation of Texas by the United States. In December 1845, President James K. Polk signed a resolution annexing Texas, and Texas became the 28th state in the union. Polk sought further expansion through the acquisition of the Mexican province of Alta California, which represented new lands to settle as well as a potential gateway to trade in Asia. His administration attempted to purchase California from Mexico, but the annexation of Texas stoked tensions between Mexico and the United States. Relations between the two countries were further complicated by Texas's claim to all land north of the Rio Grande; Mexico argued that the more northern Nueces River was the proper Texan border

Annexation of Texas and Conflict Breaks Out

Mexico had long insisted that its northern border lay along the Nueces River and refused to accept the U.S. annexation of Texas. The United States said the border was farther south, along the Rio Grande. In June 1845 President Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to lead an army into the disputed region.

Diplomatic relations between Mexico and the United States became increasingly strained. U.S. involvement in California and Texas contributed to this tension. Conflict Breaks Out Mexico had long insisted that its northern border lay along the Nueces River and refused to accept the U.S. annexation of Texas. The United States said the border was farther south, along the Rio Grande. In June 1845 President Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to lead an army into the disputed region.

War’s End

In Mexico General Taylor finally got the reinforcements he needed. He drove his forces deep into enemy lands. Santa Anna, thrown from office after losing Texas, returned to power in Mexico in September 1846. He quickly came after Taylor. The two armies clashed at Buena Vista in February 1847. After a close battle with heavy casualties on both sides, the Mexican Army retreated. The next morning, the cry went up: “The enemy has fled! The field is ours!” Taylor’s success made him a war hero back home. The general’s popularity troubled President Polk, and when Taylor’s progress stalled, Polk gave the command to General Winfield Scott. A beloved leader, he was known by his troops as “Old Fuss and Feathers” because of his strict military discipline. Scott sailed to the port of Veracruz, where the strongest fortress in Mexico was located. On March 29, after an 88-hour artillery attack, Veracruz fell. Scott moved on to the final goal, Mexico City, the capital. Taking a route similar to one followed by Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés in 1519, the Americans pushed 200 or so miles inland. Santa Anna tried to stop the U.S. forces at Cerro Gordo in mid-April, but failed. By August 1847, U.S. troops were at the edge of Mexico City.

After a truce failed, Scott ordered a massive attack on Mexico City. Mexican soldiers and civilians fought fierce battles in and around the capital. At a military school atop the steep, fortified hill of Chapultepec, young Mexican cadets bravely defended their hopeless position. At least one soldier jumped to his death rather than surrender to the invading forces. Finally, on September 14, 1847, Mexico City fell. Santa Anna soon fled the country.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo & Gadsden Purchase

The war ended after Scott took Mexico City. In February 1848, the United States and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which officially ended the war and forced Mexico to turn over much of its northern territory to the United States. Known as the Mexican Cession, this land included the present-day states of California, Nevada, and Utah. In addition, it included most of Arizona and New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Wyoming. The United States also won the area claimed by Texas north of the Rio Grande. The Mexican Cession totaled more than 500,000 square miles and increased the size of the United States by almost 25 percent. Agreements and Payments In exchange for this vast territory, the United States agreed to pay Mexico $15 million. In addition, the United States assumed claims of more than $3 million held by American citizens against the Mexican government. The treaty also addressed the status of Mexicans in the Mexican Cession. The treaty provided that they would be “protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion.” The Senate passed the treaty in March 1848. After the war with Mexico, some Americans wanted to guarantee that any southern railroad to California would be built completely on American soil. James Gadsden, U.S. minister to Mexico, negotiated an important agreement with Mexico in December 1853. Under the terms of the Gadsden Purchase, the U.S. government paid Mexico $10 million. In exchange, the United States received the southern parts of what are now Arizona and New Mexico. With this purchase, the existing boundary with Mexico was finally fixed.

Surge of American Settlers

After the Mexican-American War, a flood of Americans moved to the Southwest. American newcomers struggled against longtime residents to control the land and other valuable resources, such as water and minerals. Most Mexicans, Mexican Americans, and Native Americans faced legal, economic, and social discrimination. As a result, they found it difficult to protect their rights.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo promised to protect Mexican American residents’ property rights. Yet differences between Mexican and U.S. land laws led to great confusion. The U.S. government often made Mexican American landowners go to court to prove that they had titles to their land. Landowners had to pay their own travel costs as well as those of witnesses and interpreters. They also had to pay attorneys’ and interpreters’ fees. These legal battles often bankrupted landowners. New settlers also tended to ignore Mexican legal concepts, such as community property or community water rights.

Impact of Mexican & American Indian Cultures

White settlers also battled with American Indians over property rights. In some areas, new white settlers outnumbered Native Americans. Anglo settlers often tried to take control of valuable water resources and grazing lands. In addition, settlers rarely respected Indian holy places. Native American peoples such as the Navajo and the Apache tried to protect their land and livestock from the settlers. Indians and settlers alike attacked one another to protect their interests.

Despite conflicts, different cultures shaped one another in the Southwest. In settlements with large Mexican populations, laws were often printed in both English and Spanish. Names of places such as San Antonio, San Diego, and Santa Barbara show Hispanic heritage. Other place-names, such as Taos and Tesuque, are derived from Native American words. Communities throughout the Southwest regularly celebrated both Mexican and American holidays. Mexican and Native American knowledge and traditions also shaped many local economies. Mexican Americans taught Anglo settlers about mining in the mountains. Many ranching communities were first started by Mexican settlers. They also introduced new types of saddles and other equipment to American ranchers. Adobe, developed by the Anasazi Indians, was adopted from the Pueblo people by the Spanish. It is still commonly used by American residents in New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

The Compromise of 1850

The United States before the Compromise of 1850 and after the ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, with the Mexican Cession still unorganized

The United States after the Compromise of 1850

The Compromise of 1850 was a package of five separate bills passed by the United States Congress in September 1850 that temporarily defused tensions between slave and free states in the years leading up to the American Civil War. Designed by Whig senator Henry Clay and Democratic senator Stephen A. Douglas, with the support of President Millard Fillmore, the compromise centered around how to handle slavery in recently acquired territories from the Mexican–American War (1846-48).

The component acts:

• approved California’s request to enter the Union as a free state
• strengthened fugitive slave laws with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
• banned the slave trade in Washington, D.C. (while still allowing slavery itself there)
• defined northern and western borders for Texas while establishing a territorial government for the Territory of New Mexico, with no restrictions on whether any future state from this territory would be free or slave
• established a territorial government for the Territory of Utah, with no restrictions on whether any future state from this territory would be free or slave.

Background on the North

It’s always risky to generalize about large groups of people, whether in the United States or elsewhere, but it is possible to make some generalizations about the two sections. All these generalizations could be qualified.

The North increased far more rapidly in population during the antebellum decades than the South. There was more immigration by far. Northern states were comprised of far more urban areas, although not urban by our modern standards. The North was considerably more developed commercially and industrially than the South was. There was also a very strong agricultural sector in the North: Forty percent or more of the entire labor force in the North was engaged in agriculture, but it was far more urban, commercial, and industrial than the South.

If we had to pick out the single, dominant element of the Northern population, it would be what we would probably call yeoman farmers, independent farmers who worked their own, small parcels of land. The North had a strong strain of Yankee Protestantism that urged citizens to be thrifty, work hard, and to avoid alcohol or excess of any kind.

Not all Northerners fit into this pattern. There were millions of Catholics in the North—many Irish Catholics and German Catholics in cities and elsewhere, as well as many non-Catholics who lived in the southern regions of the North, called the Little Egypt region of the Midwest along the Ohio River—who did not subscribe to this notion of Yankee Protestantism. But among the political and economic leaders of the North, Yankee Protestantism was very strong, and this strain of Protestantism helped fuel economic expansion and pointed the way toward an emerging capitalist, industrial, and commercial giant.

The North also embraced reform movements, which were supported in a major way by this strain of the Yankee Protestant ethic. Temperance was a major reform movement in the North, as was public education, and most importantly, abolitionism.

A “free labor” ideology took hold in the North by the mid-1850s, an ideology that argued there is no inherent antagonism between labor on the one hand and capital on the other. It argued an individual could begin owning nothing but his labor, and they would have put it within the context of his labor: Work, use that labor to acquire a small amount of capital, and eventually become a member of the middle class or even more. Abraham Lincoln was a perfect example of this, someone who began with virtually nothing but his labor and ended up as a successful member of the middle class. The Republican Party believed fervently in the notion of a free-labor society.

Many in the North looked south and saw a section that they believed was holding the nation back. They saw a land of lazy, cruel, violent people who did not subscribe to the ideas that would make the United States great. That is the view many in the North had of the South.

Background of The South

The South was losing ground in population and thus, clout in Congress. The railroad, canal, and road networks in the South were underdeveloped compared to those in the North. Cities were fewer and smaller. New Orleans, at approximately 160,000 people in 1860, was by far the largest city in the South. Many cities in the North dwarfed most of the cities in the South.

The South was overwhelmingly agricultural: Eighty percent of its labor force engaged in agriculture. The vast majority of Southern wealth was invested in land and slaves. Wealthier slaveholders dominated the region politically and socially, and their lands produced key cash crops: cotton, sugar, tobacco, and rice, with cotton the most vital of these. Cotton exports alone gave the United States a favorable balance of trade in the 1850s, feeding Northern and European textile industries.

Southern religion was also of course predominantly Protestant, but it was a more personal kind of Protestantism, concerned less with reforming or improving society and more with individual salvation. Reform movements like the Temperance Movement did not take root in the South. There was virtually no abolitionist sentiment in the South, at least not spoken sentiment by the 1850s, or even before that. In comparison, education lagged far behind Northern standards across most of the South. Many white Southerners looked to the North as a region of cold, grasping people who cared little about family and subordinated everything to the process of making money.

Slavery was not only a form of labor control in the South but also the key to the South’s social system. Only about a quarter of white Southern families owned slaves, and most of those held five or fewer. Only 12 percent of the slaveholders had 12 or more slaves—that is, 12 percent of the 25 percent who owned slaves, a measure of one way to divide slaveholders between relatively large and more modest slaveholders. All Southern white people, however, had a stake in the system of slavery because, as white people, they were automatically part of the controlling class in the South. No matter how poor they were, how wretched their condition might be, white Southerners were superior in their minds and, according to the legal and social structures of their society, to the millions of enslaved African Americans among them.

---