Compromise of 1850
The compromise, drafted by Whig Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky and brokered by Clay and Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, reduced sectional conflict. Controversy arose over the Fugitive Slave provision, the Compromise was greeted with relief, although each side disliked specific provisions. Texas surrendered its claim to New Mexico, as well as its claims north of the Missouri Compromise Line and it retained the Texas Panhandle and the federal government took over the states public debt. California was admitted as a state with its current boundaries. In practice, these lands were generally unsuited to plantation agriculture, the slave trade was banned in the District of Columbia. A more stringent Fugitive Slave Law was enacted, the Compromise became possible after the sudden death of President Zachary Taylor, although a slave owner, had favored excluding slavery from the Southwest. Whig leader Henry Clay designed a compromise, which failed to pass in early 1850, upon Clays instruction, Douglas divided Clays bill into several smaller pieces and narrowly won their passage over the opposition of those with stronger views on both sides.
A state the size of Texas attracted interest from both residents and pro and anti-slavery camps on a national scale. Texas claimed land north of the 36°30 demarcation line for slavery set by the 1820 Missouri Compromise, the Texas Annexation resolution had required that if any new states were formed out of Texas lands, those north of the Missouri Compromise line would become free states. The eventual Compromise of 1850 preserved the Union, but only for another decade, passed by the House in August 1846 and February 1847 but not the Senate. Later an effort failed to attach the proviso to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the line was again proposed by the Nashville Convention of June 1850. Popular sovereignty, developed by Lewis Cass and Douglas as the eventual Democratic Party position, none of the area would be left as an unorganized or organized territory, avoiding the question of slavery in the territories. Changing Texass borders, Senator Thomas Hart Benton in December 1849 or January 1850, Texass western and northern boundaries would be the 102nd meridian west and 34th parallel north.
First draft of the compromise of 1850, Texass northwestern boundary would be a diagonal line from the Rio Grande 20 miles north of El Paso to the Red River at the 100th meridian west. On January 29,1850, Whig Senator Henry Clay gave a speech called for compromise on the issues dividing the Union. However, Clays specific proposals for achieving a compromise, including his idea for Texas boundary, were not adopted in a single bill, upon Clays urging, Senator Stephen A. Douglas, Democrat of Illinois, divided Clays bill into several smaller bills, and passed each separately. When he instructed Douglas, Clay was nearly dead and unable to guide the congressional debate any further, the Compromise of 1850 was formally proposed by Clay and guided to passage by Douglas over Northern Whig and Southern Democrat opposition. Texass boundaries were set at their present form, El Paso, where Texas had established county government, was left in Texas, Slave trade was abolished in Washington, D. C
The Texas annexation was the 1845 incorporation of the Republic of Texas into the United States of America, which was admitted to the Union as the 28th state on December 29,1845. The Republic of Texas declared independence from the Republic of Mexico on March 2,1836, at the time the vast majority of the Texian population favored the annexation of the Republic by the United States. Moreover, they wished to avoid a war with Mexico, whose government refused to acknowledge the sovereignty of its rebellious northern province. His official motivation was to outmaneuver suspected diplomatic efforts by the British government for emancipation of slaves in Texas, through secret negotiations with the Houston administration, Tyler secured a treaty of annexation in April 1844. Pro-Texas-annexation southern Democratic delegates denied their anti-annexation leader Martin Van Buren the nomination at their partys convention in May 1844, in alliance with pro-expansion northern Democratic colleagues, they secured the nomination of James K.
Polk, who ran on a pro-Texas Manifest Destiny platform. In June 1844, the Senate, with its Whig majority, the pro-annexation Democrat Polk narrowly defeated anti-annexation Whig Henry Clay in the November 1844 presidential election. In December 1844, lame-duck President Tyler called on Congress to pass his treaty by simple majorities in each house, the Democratic-dominated House of Representatives complied with his request by passing an amended bill expanding on the pro-slavery provisions of the Tyler treaty. On March 1,1845, President Tyler signed the annexation bill, when Polk took office the next day, he encouraged Texas to accept the Tyler offer. Texas ratified the agreement with popular approval from Texans, the bill was signed by Polk on December 29,1845, accepting Texas as the 28th state of the Union. Texas formally relinquished its sovereignty to the United States on February 19,1846, first mapped by Spain in 1519, Texas was part of the vast Spanish empire seized by the Spanish Conquistadors from its indigenous people for over 300 years.
When the Louisiana territory was acquired by the United States from France in 1803, the boundaries of Texas were determined within the larger geostrategic struggle to demarcate the limits of the United States extensive western lands and of Spains vast possessions in North America. Nonetheless, Texas remained an object of fervent interest to American expansionists, among them Thomas Jefferson, while a majority of southern congressmen acquiesced to the exclusion of slavery from the bulk of the Louisiana Purchase, a significant minority objected. Then-Representative John Tyler of Virginia invoked the Jeffersonian precepts of territorial and commercial growth as a goal to counter the rise of sectional differences over slavery. This doctrine would be revived during the Texas annexation controversy, colonizing empresario Stephen F. Austin managed the regional affairs of the mostly American-born population – 20% of them slaves – under the terms of the generous government land grants. A general lawlessness prevailed in the vast Texas frontier, and Mexicos civic laws went largely unenforced, Mexican authorities, perceiving that they were losing control over Texas and alarmed by the unsuccessful Fredonian Rebellion of 1826, abandoned the policy of benign rule.
New restrictions were imposed in 1829–1830, outlawing slavery throughout the nation, military occupation followed, sparking local uprisings and a civil war. Texas conventions in 1832 and 1833 submitted petitions for redress of grievances to overturn the restrictions, in 1835, an army under Mexican President Santa Anna entered its territory of Texas and abolished self-government. Texans responded by declaring their independence from Mexico on March 2,1836, on April 20–21, rebel forces under Texas General Sam Houston defeated the Mexican army at the Battle of San Jacinto
Mulatto is a term used to refer to persons born of one white parent and one black parent or to persons born of a mulatto parent or parents. In English, the term is generally confined to historical contexts. English speakers of mixed white and black ancestry seldom choose to identify themselves as mulatto. Some residents of Latin America, Spain America, the Caribbean, in Latin America, most mulattoes have descended from multi-ethnic relationships dating to the slavery period, rather than from recent ethnic mixing. This is especially true in Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cape Verde, Puerto Rico and Venezuela. The etymology of the term is believed to derive from the Spanish and Portuguese mulato, which comes from mula, meaning mule, the hybrid offspring of a horse. Some dictionaries and scholarly works trace the origins to the Arabic term muwallad. Muwallad literally means born, produced, brought up, with the implication of being born and raised among Arabs, Muwallad is derived from the root word WaLaD, and colloquial Arabic pronunciation can vary greatly.
Walad means, offspring, child, boy, young animal, in al-Andalus, Muwallad referred to the offspring of non-Arab/Muslim people who adopted the Islamic religion and manners. Notable examples of this include the famous Muslim scholar Ibn Hazm. Thus, in context, the term Muwalad has a meaning close to the adopted. According to the source, the term does not denote being of mixed-race but rather being of foreign-blood. In English, printed usage of mulatto dates to at least the 16th century and this earliest usage regarded black and white as discrete species, with the mulatto constituting a third separate species. According to Julio Izquierdo Labrado, the 19th-century linguist Leopoldo Eguilaz y Yanguas, as well as some Arabic sources muwallad is the origin of mulato. The Real Academia Española casts doubt on the muwallad theory, Scholars such as Werner Sollors cast doubt on the mule etymology for mulatto. In the 18th and 19th centuries, racialists such as Edward Long and they projected this belief back onto the etymology of the word mulatto.
Sollers points out that this etymology is anachronistic, The Mulatto sterility hypothesis that has much to do with the rejection of the term by some writers is only half as old as the word Mulatto. Of São Tomé and Príncipes 193,413 inhabitants, the largest segment is classified as mestiço. or mixed race, 71% of the population of Cape Verde is classified as such
The Missouri Compromise is the title generally attached to the legislation passed by the 16th Congress of the United States on May 8,1820. The measures provided for the admission of the District of Maine as a free to ratify a state constitution that both did not recognize and prohibited slavery within the state. Further, the Compromise provided that the Missouri territory was free to enact a constitution that both recognized as legal and permitted, the institution of chattel slavery. With these actions, the Compromise committed the largest remaining portion of Purchase territory to free soil, South of the parallel no slavery restrictions were imposed in the Arkansas Territory, which became Indian territory and Arkansas. There were not any statements about restrictions or recognition of the institution of slavery at or South of the latitude, President James Monroe signed the legislation on April 6,1820. The compromise bills served to quell the furious sectional debates that had first erupted during the session of the 15th Congress.
On February 3,1819, Representative James Tallmadge, Jr. a Jeffersonian Republican from New York State, had submitted two amendments to Missouris request for statehood. The first proposed to prohibit further slave migration into Missouri. At issue among southern legislators was the encroachment by their northern free state colleagues in what they considered a purely sectional concern, the more populous North held a firm numerical advantage in the House. Jeffersonian Republicans in the North ardently maintained that an interpretation of the Constitution required that Congress act to limit the spread of slavery on egalitarian grounds. The slave-holding states were acutely aware that maintaining a balance in the number of states was necessary to ensure political equilibrium in the US Senate. The South sought to enlist Missouri to maintain Southern political preeminence, the Missouri question in the 15th Congress ended in stalemate on March 4,1819, the House sustaining its northern antislavery position, and the Senate blocking a slavery restricted statehood.
Antislavery agitation grew in the North in the aftermath of the debates, as the 16th Congress assembled in December 1819, the two houses remained thoroughly polarized over slavery in the Louisiana Purchase territories. Thomas of Illinois added a proviso, excluding slavery from all remaining lands of the Louisiana Purchase north of the 36 30’ parallel. The combined measures passed the Senate, only to be voted down in the House by those Northern representatives who held out for a free Missouri, speaker of the House of Representatives Henry Clay of Kentucky, in a desperate bid to break the deadlock, divided the Senate bills. The legislation extracted by the served to effect a brokered truce or armistice rather than a genuine compromise. The crux of the Compromise was that it circumvented the deepening disaffection among Jeffersonian Republicans, the Era of Good Feelings, closely associated with the administration of President James Monroe, was characterized by the dissolution of national political identities.
The end of opposition parties meant the end of party discipline, rather than produce political harmony, as President James Monroe had hoped, amalgamation had led to intense rivalries among Jeffersonian Republicans
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court of the United States. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the interpreter of federal constitutional law. The Court normally consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight justices who are nominated by the President. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, in modern discourse, the justices are often categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. Each justice has one vote, and while many cases are decided unanimously, the Court meets in the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D. C. The Supreme Court is sometimes referred to as SCOTUS, in analogy to other acronyms such as POTUS. The ratification of the United States Constitution established the Supreme Court in 1789 and its powers are detailed in Article Three of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the court specifically established by the Constitution.
The Court first convened on February 2,1790, by which five of its six initial positions had been filled. According to historian Fergus Bordewich, in its first session, he Supreme Court convened for the first time at the Royal Exchange Building on Broad Street and they had no cases to consider. After a week of inactivity, they adjourned until September, the sixth member was not confirmed until May 12,1790. Because the full Court had only six members, every decision that it made by a majority was made by two-thirds. However, Congress has always allowed less than the Courts full membership to make decisions, under Chief Justices Jay and Ellsworth, the Court heard few cases, its first decision was West v. Barnes, a case involving a procedural issue. The Courts power and prestige grew substantially during the Marshall Court, the Marshall Court ended the practice of each justice issuing his opinion seriatim, a remnant of British tradition, and instead issuing a single majority opinion. Also during Marshalls tenure, although beyond the Courts control, the impeachment, the Taney Court made several important rulings, such as Sheldon v.
Nevertheless, it is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which helped precipitate the Civil War. In the Reconstruction era, the Chase and Fuller Courts interpreted the new Civil War amendments to the Constitution, during World War II, the Court continued to favor government power, upholding the internment of Japanese citizens and the mandatory pledge of allegiance. Nevertheless, Gobitis was soon repudiated, and the Steel Seizure Case restricted the pro-government trend, the Warren Court dramatically expanded the force of Constitutional civil liberties. It held that segregation in public schools violates equal protection and that traditional legislative district boundaries violated the right to vote
Slavery in the United States
Slavery had been practiced in British North America from early colonial days, and was legal in all Thirteen Colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. By the time of the American Revolution, the status of slave had been institutionalized as a racial caste associated with African ancestry, when the United States Constitution was ratified, a relatively small number of free people of color were among the voting citizens. During and immediately following the Revolutionary War, abolitionist laws were passed in most Northern states, most of these states had a higher proportion of free labor than in the South and economies based on different industries. They abolished slavery by the end of the 18th century, some with gradual systems that kept adults as slaves for two decades. But the rapid expansion of the industry in the Deep South after the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased demand for slave labor. Congress during the Jefferson administration prohibited the importation of slaves, effective in 1808, domestic slave trading, continued at a rapid pace, driven by labor demands from the development of cotton plantations in the Deep South.
More than one million slaves were sold from the Upper South, which had a surplus of labor, New communities of African-American culture were developed in the Deep South, and the total slave population in the South eventually reached 4 million before liberation. As the West was developed for settlement, the Southern state governments wanted to keep a balance between the number of slave and free states to maintain a balance of power in Congress. The new territories acquired from Britain and Mexico were the subject of major political compromises, by 1850, the newly rich cotton-growing South was threatening to secede from the Union, and tensions continued to rise. When Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election on a platform of halting the expansion of slavery, the first six states to secede held the greatest number of slaves in the South. Shortly after, the Civil War began when Confederate forces attacked the US Armys Fort Sumter, four additional slave states seceded. In the early years of the Chesapeake Bay settlements, colonial officials found it difficult to attract and retain laborers under the frontier conditions.
Most laborers came from Britain as indentured servants, having signed contracts of indenture to pay with work for their passage, their upkeep and training and these indentured servants were young people who intended to become permanent residents. In some cases, convicted criminals were transported to the colonies as indentured servants, the indentured servants were not slaves, but were required to work for four to seven years in Virginia to pay the cost of their passage and maintenance. Historians estimate that more than half of all immigrants to the English colonies of North America during the 17th and 18th centuries came as indentured servants. The number of indentured servants among immigrants was particularly high in the South, many Germans, Scots-Irish, and Irish came to the colonies in the 18th century, settling in the backcountry of Pennsylvania and further south. The planters in the South found that the problem with indentured servants was that many left after several years, just when they had become skilled.
In addition, an economy in England in the late 17th
The Northwest Ordinance was an act of the Congress of the Confederation of the United States, passed July 13,1787. The upper Mississippi River formed the Territorys western boundary and it was based upon but more conservative than Thomas Jeffersons proposed ordinance of 1784. The 1787 law relied on a central government, which was assured under the new Constitution that took effect in 1789. In August 1789, it was replaced by the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 and it was precedent setting legislation with regard to American public domain lands. This division helped set the stage for competition over admitting free and slave states. The territory was acquired by Great Britain from France following victory in the Seven Years War, Great Britain took over the Ohio Country, as its eastern portion was known, but a few months closed it to new European settlement by the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The Crown tried to restrict settlement of the thirteen colonies between the Appalachians and the Atlantic, which raised tensions among those who wanted to move west.
With the colonials victory in the American Revolutionary War and signing of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the territories were subject to overlapping and conflicting claims of the states of Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia dating from their colonial past. The British were active in some of the area until after the Louisiana Purchase. The region had long been desired for expansion by colonists, the states were encouraged to settle their claims by the US governments de facto opening of the area to settlement following the defeat of Great Britain. Jeffersons proposal to create a domain through state cessions of western lands was derived from earlier proposals dating back to 1776. The Congress of the Confederation modified the proposal, passing it as the Land Ordinance of 1784 and this ordinance established the example that would become the basis for the Northwest Ordinance three years later. The 1784 ordinance was criticized by George Washington in 1785 and James Monroe in 1786, Monroe convinced Congress to reconsider the proposed state boundaries, a review committee recommended repealing that part of the ordinance.
Other events such as the reluctance of states south of the Ohio River to cede their western claims resulted in a narrowed geographic focus, when passed in New York in 1787, the Northwest Ordinance showed the influence of Jefferson. It called for dividing the territory into gridded townships, so once the lands were surveyed, they could be sold to individuals. This would provide both a new source of government revenue and an orderly pattern for future settlement. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 established the concept of fee simple ownership and this was called the first guarantee of freedom of contract in the United States. These territories were to be administered directly by Congress, with the intent of their admission as newly created states
United States v. The Amistad
United States v. Schooner Amistad,40 U. S.518, was a United States Supreme Court case resulting from the rebellion of Africans on board the Spanish schooner La Amistad in 1839. It was a freedom suit that involved international issues and parties. The historian Samuel Eliot Morison in 1965 described it as the most important court case involving slavery before being eclipsed by that of Dred Scott, the schooner was traveling along the coast of Cuba on its way to a port for re-sale of the slaves. The African captives, who had kidnapped in Sierra Leone and illegally sold into slavery and shipped to Cuba, escaped their shackles. They killed the captain and the cook, two crew members escaped in a lifeboat. The Africans directed the survivors to return them to Africa, the crew tricked them, sailing north at night. The Amistad was apprehended near Long Island, New York, by the United States Revenue Cutter Service, the widely publicized court cases in the United States federal district and Supreme Court, which addressed international issues, helped the abolitionist movement.
The captives were ruled to have acted as men when they fought to escape their illegal confinement. The Court ruled the Africans were entitled to take whatever measures necessary to secure their freedom. Under international and sectional pressure, U. S. President Martin Van Buren ordered the case appealed to the Supreme Court. It affirmed the court ruling on March 9,1841, and authorized the release of the Africans. Supporters arranged for housing of the Africans in Farmington, Connecticut as well as funds for travel. In 1842 they transported by ship those who wanted to return to Africa, on June 27,1839, La Amistad, a Spanish vessel, departed from the port of Havana, for the Province of Puerto Principe, in Cuba. The masters of La Amistad were the ships captain Ramón Ferrer, José Ruiz, with Ferrer was his personal slave Antonio. Ruiz was transporting 49 Africans, entrusted to him by the governor-general of Cuba, Montez held four additional Africans, entrusted to him by the governor-general. As the voyage took only four days, the crew had brought four days’ worth of rations.
On July 2,1839, one of the Africans, Cinqué, freed himself, the Mende Africans killed the ships cook, who had told them that they were to be killed and eaten by their captors. The slaves killed Captain Ferrer, the struggle resulted as well in the deaths of two Africans, two sailors escaped in a lifeboat
It ensued after South Carolina declared that the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and therefore null and void within the sovereign boundaries of the state. The US suffered an economic downturn throughout the 1820s, and South Carolina was particularly affected, many South Carolina politicians blamed the change in fortunes on the national tariff policy that developed after the War of 1812 to promote American manufacturing over its European competition. The controversial and highly protective Tariff of 1828 was enacted into law during the presidency of John Quincy Adams, the tariff was opposed in the South and parts of New England. By 1828, South Carolina state politics increasingly organized around the tariff issue and its opponents expected that the election of Jackson as President would result in the tariff being significantly reduced. In Washington, a split on the issue occurred between Jackson and Vice President John C. Calhoun, a native South Carolinian and the most effective proponent of the theory of state nullification.
On July 14,1832, before Calhoun had resigned the Vice Presidency in order to run for the Senate where he could effectively defend nullification, Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most northerners and half of the southerners in Congress, military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement were initiated by the state. The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 15,1833, the crisis was over, and both sides could find reasons to claim victory. The tariff rates were reduced and stayed low to the satisfaction of the South, by the 1850s the issues of the expansion of slavery into the western territories and the threat of the Slave Power became the central issues in the nation. Later in the decade the Alien and Sedition Acts led to the states rights position being articulated in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. ”The key sentence, and the word nullification was used in supplementary Resolutions passed by Kentucky in 1799.
He was chairman of a committee of the Virginia Legislature which issued a book-length Report on the Resolutions of 1798 and this asserted that the state did not claim legal force. The declarations in such cases are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied by other effect than what they may produce upon opinion, the opinions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect by force. But, the four presidential terms spanning the period from 1800 to 1817 did little to advance the cause of states’ rights and much to weaken it. ”Over Jefferson’s opposition, the power of the federal judiciary, led by Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall, increased. Jefferson expanded federal powers with the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory, opposition to the War of 1812 was centered in New England. Delegates to a convention in Hartford, Connecticut met in December 1814 to consider a New England response to Madison’s war policy, the debate allowed many radicals to argue the cause of states’ rights and state sovereignty.
In the end, moderate voices dominated and the product was not secession or nullification. After the conclusion of the War of 1812 Sean Wilentz notes, This spirit of nationalism was linked to the tremendous growth and economic prosperity of this post war era
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Dred Scott v. Sandford,60 U. S.393, known simply as the Dred Scott case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. Dred Scott, an man of the negro African race who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B, the court denied Scotts request. The decision was only the time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional. Although Taney hoped that his ruling would finally settle the slavery question, many contemporary lawyers, and most modern legal scholars, consider the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be dictum, not binding precedent. The decision proved to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War and it was functionally superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1868, which gave African Americans full citizenship. The Supreme Courts decision in Dred Scott v.
Sandford is unanimously denounced by scholars, bernard Schwartz says it stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions—Chief Justice C. E. Hughes called it the Courts greatest self-inflicted wound. Junius P. Rodriguez says it is condemned as the U. S. Supreme Courts worst decision. Historian David Thomas Konig says it was unquestionably, our courts worst decision ever, Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia in 1795. Little is known of his early years and his owner, Peter Blow, moved to Alabama in 1818, taking his six slaves along to work a farm near Huntsville. In 1830, Blow gave up farming and settled in St. Louis, after purchasing Scott, Emerson took him to Fort Armstrong, which was located in Illinois. A free state, Illinois had been free as a territory under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, in 1836, Emerson moved with Scott from Illinois to Fort Snelling, which was located in the Wisconsin territory in what would become the state of Minnesota. Slavery in the Wisconsin Territory was prohibited by the United States Congress under the Missouri Compromise, during his stay at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson in a civil ceremony by Harriets owner, Major Lawrence Taliaferro, a justice of the peace who was an Indian agent.
The ceremony would have been unnecessary if Dred Scott were a slave, in 1837, the Army ordered Emerson to Jefferson Barracks Military Post, south of St. Louis, Missouri. Emerson left Scott and his wife at Fort Snelling, where he leased their services out for profit, before the end of the year, the Army reassigned Emerson to Fort Jesup in Louisiana, where Emerson married Eliza Irene Sanford in February,1838. Emerson sent for Scott and Harriet, who proceeded to Louisiana to serve their master, while en route to Louisiana, Scotts daughter Eliza was born on a steamboat underway along the Mississippi River between Illinois and what would become Iowa. Because Eliza was born in free territory, she was born as a free person under both federal and state laws. Upon entering Louisiana, the Scotts could have sued for their freedom and this had been the holding in Louisiana state courts for more than 20 years