Immigration, Expansion, and Sectional Conflict 1840-1848 Chapter 13 Immigration, Expansion, and Sectional Conflict 1840-1848

Introduction (cont.) In the 1840’s, many American believed it was the “manifest destiny” of the U.S.A. to possess North America from coast to coast Acting on that belief, the administration of James K. Polk between 1845 and 1849: Annexed Texas Divided the Oregon Territory with GB Fought the Mexican War Resulting in the conquest of CA and NM

Introduction (cont.) Also in the 1840’s and 1850’s a rising tide of new immigrants entered the country Expansion and immigration were linked The overwhelming Democratic Party leaders saw the acquisition of more land and a return to a republic of self-sufficient farmers A way of relieving growing class, ethnic, and sectional conflicts Adding OR would please the North Adding TX would please the South

Introduction (cont.) In fact, westward expansion had the opposite effect It sharpened sectional strife Split the Democratic Party Set the nation on the path to the Civil War

Introduction (cont.) 1.) How did immigration in the 1840’s influence the balance of power between the Whig and Democratic Parties 2.) What economic and political forces fed westward expansion during the 1840’s 3.) How did westward expansion threaten war with Britain and Mexico 4.) How did the outcome of the Mexican-American War intensify intersectional conflict?

Introduction Newcomers and Natives Between 1840 and 1860 4.2 million immigrants entered the U.S.A. 2 biggest groups came from Ireland and the German states

Expectations and Realities (cont.) By 1860 Irish and Germans accounted for about 50% of the populations in the following cities: St. Louis New York Chicago Cincinnati Milwaukee Detroit San Francisco

The Irish Between 1815 and 1844 almost 1 million Irish entered the U.S.A. Most were Catholic, poor, and seeking greater economic opportunity From 1845-1855 Roughly 2 million arrived Overwhelming Catholic Fleeing from the potato famine in Ireland They usually entered the urban work force at the bottom Competed for jobs with equally poor blacks

The Irish (cont.) The competition for jobs between the Irish and poor blacks led to animosity between the 2 groups Made most Irish hostile to abolition and abolitionists Those Irish who rose to the level of skilled and semi-skilled workers competed against native-born, white, Protestant mechanics Caused another level of hostilities Ethnic and religious

Anti-Catholicism, Nativism, and Labor Protest Know-Nothing Party A.k.a. American Party Mostly white, Protestant, native-born workers anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant Ohio History link on Know Nothing Party Played a significant political role in the 1850’s

Immigrant Politics Almost all Irish and German immigrants became supporters of the Democratic Party Antiprivilege party More sympathetic to the common man than the Whigs They also resented Whig connections with the temperance movement and nativism The Irish suspected the northern Whigs of antislavery views Irish feared economic competition from emancipated slaves They wanted no part of abolitionism

The United States in 1840

The American Settlement of Texas to 1835 In the 1820’s the Mexican govt. gave generous land grants to Americans encouraged their settlement in TX a way to guard against Indian attacks hasten the economic development of the province Many Americans came Mostly from southern states In the 1830’s, Mexican govt. attempted to end American immigration and prohibit slavery in TX

The American Settlement of Texas to 1835 (cont.) Its efforts antagonized the Americans but failed to stop the flood of immigrants By 1836 the American population in TX was 30,000 free and 5,000 slaves

The American Settlement of Texas to 1835 (cont.) Santa Anna New president-dictator of Mexico 1834 Started to tighten his hold on TX The Americans in the province rebelled

The Texas Revolution, 1836 Fall of 1835 Santa Anna led an army into TX to suppress the uprising The Mexicans defeated the Americans at the Alamo and at Goliad

The Battle of the Alamo

The Texas Revolution, 1836 (cont.) In April 1836 Sam Houston Led the American route against the Mexicans at San Jacinto Took Santa Anna prisoner Forced him to sign a treaty granting TX independence The Mexican govt. later refused to ratify the treaty But TX remained independent

American Settlements in CA, NM, and OR (cont.) In the 1830’s, American missionaries entered Oregon’s Willamette Valley to attempt to convert the Indians there The missionaries’ glowing reports of the territory’s climate and resources aroused keen interest back in the U.S.A.

The Overland Trails In the 1840’s, 14,000 Americans joined wagon trains on the overland trails (or the OR and CA trails) Headed for OR or CA Problems: Faulty maps and guidebooks Fears of Indian attacks

The Politics of Expansion, 1840-1846 Introduction At the start of 1840’s, western expansion was not an important political issue Only after politicians failed to deal effectively with troubling economic issues did some of these leaders seize on expansion as a primary goal

The Whig Ascendancy The Whig Party won the election of 1840 William Henry Harrison The Party planned to enact Clay’s American system of a new national bank, protective tariffs, and federal aid for internal improvements

The Whig Ascendancy (cont.) Harrison died after only 1 month in the White House VP was John Tyler Tyler was a states’ rights Virginian Vetoed all the economic measures Congress passed Created tension in the Whig party

Tyler and the Annexation of Texas Tyler supported the U.S. annexation of Texas Appointed John C. Calhoun as his secretary of state Draw up a treaty with Mexico to annex TX

Tyler and the Annexation of Texas (cont.) Calhoun wrote undiplomatically that one reason for annexation was to provide more territory for the expansion and protection of slavery This added fuel to already existing northern suspicions that acquiring TX was part of a southern conspiracy to expand slavery The Senate rejected Tyler and Calhoun’s annexation treaty

The Election of 1844 Whigs nominated Henry Clay Democrats nominated James Polk Major issue of annexation of TX

The Election of 1844 (cont.) Henry Clay waved on annexation James Polk First opposed it as sectionally divisive His shifts lost southern votes to Democrats and northern antislavery votes to the Liberty James Polk Expansionist Called for admitting TX immediately Many Irish and other recent immigrants voted for Polk They disliked the Whigs’ association with nativism, temperance, and anti-Catholicism Polk won in a close election

Manifest Destiny, 1845 Expansionism had become a popular cause by the 1840’s Many expansionists said it was “manifest destiny” to the U.S.A. to spread its experiment in liberty and self-govt. from coast to coast John L. O’Sullivan developed the phrase of “manifest destiny” Expansionists eyed the excellent harbors of CA and OR Natural outlets for American trade with Asia

Manifest Destiny, 1845 (cont.) Expansionists argued that acquiring additional fertile soil would safeguard the U.S. future as a democratic republic of self-sufficient farmers Combat the social stratification and class strife that accompanied industrialization and urbanization These ideas, carried in the penny press, strongly appealed to struggling immigrants in the cities

Polk and Oregon Polk wanted OR during the 1844 campaign Manifest Destiny placed OR in its sights Neither GB or U.S.A. wanted a war over OR They settled for a compromise treaty Split OR at the 49th parallel Senate ratified the treaty in 1846

The Mexican-American War and Its Aftermath, 1846-1848 The Origins of the Mexican-American War In Feb. 1845, Congress passed a joint resolution to annex TX Mexico never recognized the independence of TX TX claimed that its southern boundary was the Rio Grande Mexico contented that it was the Nueces River (100 miles to the northeast) Polk’s support encouraged Texas to accept annexation on July 4, 1845

The Origins of the Mexican-American War (cont.) Polk also wanted to gain CA and NM He sent John Slidell to Mexico with an offer to buy them for $25 million Mexico refused

The Origins of the Mexican-American War (cont.) Polk ordered American troops into the disputed region south of the Nueces River Led by Zachary Taylor Polk hoped to provoke a war that would give the U.S. a chance to seize CA and NM

The Origins of the Mexican-American War (cont.) When Mexican troops clashed with Taylor’s, Polk told Congress that Mexico had forced war with the U.S.

The Origins of the Mexican-American War (cont.)

The Mexican-American War Feb. 1847 Taylor defeated a Mexican army at the Battle of Buena Vista Colonel Stephen Kearny took NM Commodores John D. Sloat and David Stockon and army officers Kearny and John C. Fremont Took CA combined naval and land assaults

The Mexican-American War (cont.) General Winfield Scott Captured Mexico City Mexico surrendered Sept. 1847 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Mexico accepted the Rio Grande boundary Mexico Ceded to U.S.A. almost all of the present-day U.S. southwest region U.S.A. paid $15 million U.S.A. promised to pay claims of U.S. citizens against Mexico

The War’s Effects on Sectional Conflict Patriotism was generated by the war Sectional conflict grew though between 1846 and 1848 The Polk administration angered the North and West by lowering tariffs and vetoing federal aid for internal improvements

The War’s Effects on Sectional Conflict (cont.) Most important, arguments began over the expansion of slavery in the Mexican cession Northern Democrats worried that the western expansion of slavery would close out opportunities for free laborers in the West and worsen class antagonism in the East

The Wilmot Proviso 1846 David Wilmot Northern Democratic Tacked on an appropriations bill an amendment that would bar slavery from the new territory acquired from Mexico Passed the House but not the Senate Extremist southerners led by Calhoun claimed it was unconstitutional for Congress to forbid slavery in any territory

The Election of 1848 Whigs nominated Zachary Taylor Democrats nominated Lewis Cass Tried to solve the sectional controversy by proposing popular sovereignty which would give settlers who lived in a territory the right to decide whether to permit slavery

The Election of 1848 (cont.) Free-Soil Party A faction of Democrats called Barnburners joined antislavery “conscience” Whigs and Liberty Party abolitionists Nominated Martin Van Buren Opposed to any further spread of slavery

The Election of 1848 (cont.) Taylor won the election A military hero position on slavery was unknown The good showing of the Free-Soilers in the North demonstrated the popular appeal of keeping slavery out of the West and using it as a place of opportunity for poor white men

The California Gold Rush Just before the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, an American carpenter living in CA discovered gold near Sacramento The news quickly reached the east Produced a rush of prospectors CA’s population surged The weak military govt. proved unequal to containing the violence and disorder of the gold fields and mining boomtowns Californians demanded a civilian state govt. This brought to a head the issue of slavery in CA and the rest of the Mexican cession

Panning Gold, California

Conclusion Polk during his one term, nearly led the U.S.A. into a war against Britain and did fight Mexico. The issue of the spread of slavery into the territories taken from Mexico fanned sectional strife and split the Democrats Many northern Democrats joined others in 1848 to create the Free-Soil Party

The Compromise of 1850 Introduction When the treaty ending the Mexican War was signed in 1848, a delicate balance existed between free and slave states 15 of each All the proposed solutions for handling slavery in the Mexican cession were controversial Whether to prohibit it Open the whole area to slaveholders Extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Or apply popular sovereignty Other issues also divided the North and South CA and UT asked Congress for admission to the Union as free states

Compromise of 1850

IV. The Fugitive Slave Law was passed. Compromise of 1850 I. California became a free state. II. The rest of the Mexican Cession was divided into two parts; Utah (UT) and New Mexico (NM). * people in UT and NM used popular sovereignty to decide on the slavery issue III. The slave trade ended in Washington, D.C. IV. The Fugitive Slave Law was passed.

The Fugitive Slave Law • All Americans, by law, were required to help catch runaway slaves. • You could be fined and/or imprisoned for helping a runaway slave. • This law infuriated northerners! Cazenovia, MA, Fugitive Slave Law Convention held on 21 and 22 August 1850; Frederick Douglass is seated at the right side of the table.

Kansas-Nebraska Act I. The Nebraska Territory was divided into two parts: Nebraska (NE) and Kansas (KS).

Kansas-Nebraska Act II. The people of each territory voted on whether or not to allow slavery. (popular sovereignty)

Kansas-Nebraska Act * The Kansas-Nebraska Act violated the Missouri Compromise. Both territories were north of 36,30’N and should NOT have been allowed to have slaves!

“Bleeding Kansas” Before the vote on slavery: • Northerners crossed the border to keep KS a free state. • Southerners crossed the border to make KS a slave state. • Both sides claimed victory on the vote!