How Victory in the Mexican-American War Almost Caused the American Civil War
The Civil War is a central part of early American history. The bloodshed from 1861 to 1865 settled questions from the existence of slavery to federalism to economic issues. However, there were two earlier moments in the early 19th century when America could have descended into civil war, being prevented only through political skill, leadership, and sheer luck; this piece covers the second near miss - the Mexican-American War.
America was a powder keg in 1850 following its victory in the Mexican-American War. Congress debated on multiple issues that touched the slavery debate in some form; these disputes would culminate in Texas invading New Mexico. The resulting compromise would see the country descend into chaos over the next decade but ultimately aid the North in the upcoming war. Welcome to the Crisis of 1850.
The Crisis of 1850 began just after the outbreak of the Mexican-American War. When President James K. Polk asked Congress for funding in August 1846, Pennsylvania Democrat David Wilmont stated Congress would provide the money…if slavery would be banned in the territory gained from Mexico. Wilmot's Proviso, although killed in the Senate, inflamed sectional tensions in the political parties; some tried dodging the issue while anti-slavery Northerners formed a new group—the Free Soil Party. The presidential election of 1848 became a vote on slavery’s expansion. Democratic candidate Lewis Cass promoted “popular sovereignty”—letting a territory’s citizens vote on allowing slavery—because it kept Congress out of the debate. Whig candidate Zachary Taylor stayed ambiguous to appeal to a broader base. Free Soil candidate Martin van Buren supported banning slavery’s expansion. Because van Buren and Cass split the New York vote, Taylor barely won the election. Southern political leaders responded by chastising abolitionists. The following year, California wanted to enter the Union as a free state quickly. Taylor supported California’s decision because it avoided Congress fighting over allowing slavery in the state. However, Southern Congressmen opposed it because California would throw off the balance between free and slave states. This wasn’t the only issue on Congress’ plate; Texas still claimed the eastern half of the newly created New Mexico territory. In addition, Southerners wanted the New Mexico and Utah territories to have popular sovereignty, hoping one of them could become a slave state to offset California’s entry. Southerners also wanted a new stricter fugitive slave law since Northerners refused to return escaped slaves. Finally, abolitionists wanted the slave trade out of Washington, D.C. (Hamilton, 2005, 7-24; Waugh, 2003, 27-30). Little did Congress know the upcoming session would bring the country to near war.
The new Congress was a mix of veterans and freshmen lawmakers; the most important Congressman was Kentucky Senator Henry Clay. Clay had served in Congress on and off throughout the early 19th century. He was known for striking compromises that satisfied both sides, from the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to the tariff that ended the Nullification Crisis in early 1833. In January 1850, Clay introduced a bill that tackled all the issues at once. However, it faced opposition from both Taylor and Congress since each person had issues with specific provisions. The bill collapsed after six weeks of passionate debate forcing Clay back to the drawing board. Other Congressmen proposed solutions to specific issues as Clay searched for allies (Hamilton, 25-37, 43-46, 50-62; Hodder, 1936, 526-528; Maizlish, 2018, 27-30). He soon found a strong rock for the incoming storm.
Illinois Senator Stephen A Douglas watched Clay fight for and lose his bill. The House then asked Douglas, the chair of the Senate Territories Committee, to draft legislation on California’s entry and New Mexico; the latter bill stated Texas would be compensated for its loss of territory. Douglas got some assistance from South Carolina senator John C. Calhoun’s death that March; Congress cooled down as they mourned his passing throughout April. Douglas’ House allies introduced his bill in the House that month. Clay reluctantly backed Douglas’ proposal as he toiled behind the scenes. In early May, Clay introduced a new bill that only focused on California and the territories. The bill sparked numerous debates and revisions from both sides. In June, nine Southern states held a political convention in Nashville, debating what to do if Clay’s compromise passed. Some championed succession, but others preferred fighting for certain compromises (Hamilton, 84-102; Hodder, 528-532). However, outside forces would force, and help spur, a resolution to the crisis.
The New Mexico territory was organized for statehood as Congress sat deadlocked during the spring; this culminated in New Mexico adopting an antislavery constitution that May. Texas, not wanting to lose its land, sent an army into New Mexico territory. The federal government panicked upon receiving the news in late June; Taylor ordered New Mexico’s military governor to hold fire on the Texan force. Unfortunately, those were Taylor’s last orders; he died of a stomach illness in early July, making Millard Fillmore president. Thankfully, both sides averted conflict, waiting for further instructions from the government. The new president Fillmore supported Clay’s compromise. Clay hoped the bill would pass with the White House’s backing; however, the Senate gutted his bill when they voted on it in late July. A defeated Clay left the Senate soon after to recover from tuberculosis; it now fell to Douglas to finish Clay’s work. Douglas broke up Clay’s bill and introduced them as separate pieces; each issue was solved individually, from the U.S. absorbing Texas’ debt in exchange for them accepting the current borders to a new Fugitive Slave law. Congress was exhausted when it adjourned in late September. Many political leaders hoped the Compromise would settle the slavery debate. However, the deal had its critics. Southerners decried it for upsetting the free and slave state balance; Northerners abhorred the new Fugitive Slave Law. Ten years later, seven Southern states left the Union following Abraham Lincoln’s election (Hamilton, 103-111, 133-146, 151-164; Hodder, 532-535; Waugh, 177-184, 187-190). Ultimately, the compromise that seemingly settled slavery only delayed the Civil War.
So why is the 1850 Compromise important if it did not prevent the Civil War? Well, the ten-year gap allowed for three things. The first was political; the decade’s events like Bleeding Kansas and the Dred Scott Decision would show both sides that slavery’s existence could not be solved effectively through the existing political system empowering pro and anti-slavery extremists. In addition, the Compromise sowed the seeds for the Republican Party; many of its founders were former Northern Whigs and Free Soilers who abhorred the Compromise (Waugh, 187-190). Finally, the Compromise gave the North time to prepare for war; they grew their population, infrastructure, and industry while the South invested in its slave-based plantation agriculture. Those material advantages would offset the South’s initial edge in morale and military leadership in the long run; the North would not have had such a massive edge had the war started a decade earlier. In the end, the Compromise did resolve the slavery debate; it just took fifteen years and one bloody national conflict to do so.
Works Cited
Hamilton, H. (2005). Prologue to Conflict: The Crisis and Compromise of 1850. University Press of Kentucky. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1915264.
Hodder, F. H. (1936). “The Authorship of the Compromise of 1850.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 22(4), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.2307/1897319.
Maizlish, S. E. (2018). A Strife of Tongues: The Compromise of 1850 and the Ideological Foundations of the American Civil War. University of Virginia Press. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5447711.
Waugh, J C. (2003). On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How It Changed the Course of American History. Scholarly Resources Inc.
