George Henry Gordon circa 1846; Massachusetts graduate of West Point who fought in the Mexican-American War and Civil War
Below are three questions on the first half of Chapter 13: The Impending Crisis (pp. 289-302) by Tom Favaloro. Please answer one with a comment of at least one paragraph.
- With the addition of states like Texas, Oregon, and California into the Union, Americans had different opinions about westward expansion. Why was expansion such a divisive issue during the 1830s and 1840s?
- In your opinion, was the Mexican-American War justified? Did President James K. Polk handle the situation effectively? If you were president, how would you have approached the conflict with Mexico?
- The Compromise of 1850 was one of the most important agreements in U.S. history. How did the compromise resolve sectional issues? How might “popular sovereignty” be problematic in the years following the Compromise of 1850?
American Pluralism to 1877 
Q1 With the addition of states like Texas, Oregon, and California into the Union, Americans had different opinions about westward expansion. Why was expansion such a divisive issue during the 1830s and 1840s?
Expansion into western territory had always been a controversial issue, even in the early years of the American colonies in North America. Colonists desired to move further West but King George famously prohibited settlement past the Appalachian Mountains by issuing the Proclamation of 1763. Expansion continued to become a divisive issue in the 1800s when Northern Federalist merchants argued against expansion since it would have an adverse economic effect on the wealthy and powerful New England merchants. These merchants would lose out on their profitable businesses as western and southern cities like New Orleans threatened the financial viability of previously successful colonial merchant cities such as Boston and New York. They believed that expansion would cause great instability throughout the country.
This issue of expansion was at its highest in the 1830s and 1840s when the United States allowed Texas, Oregon, and California into the Union. Expansion was a huge political issue mainly because of the way it would affect slavery. Those against expansion feared that slavery would be spread into western territories, creating an imbalance between the number of free states and slave states. The Free Soil Party was once such group that discouraged slavery in the western lands since it would be morally and economically unfair. Not only did they argue that slavery was morally wrong, but they also argued that planters in the west would take away economic opportunities away from non-slaveholders. Many people wanted the western land to be affordable for non-slaveholders who were not as wealthy as the big planters of the South.
Those in favor of westward expansion cited Manifest Destiny as a sufficient argument for expansion across North America. Expansion supporters felt that the United States needed to spread democracy and special American virtues as far west as possible. They also saw expansion as a huge opportunity for industrialization, as the abundance of western land gave financial hope for a lot of businessmen. The California Gold Rush illustrated just how profitable the western lands could be, and it set the stage for a boom in population in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles.
In conclusion, it can be said that the issue of expansion was divisive in three ways. The first problem was the moral issue of whether or not slavery should be permitted in the West. The second problem was motivated by economics since many feared that expansion would upset the economic stability of the country. These people did not want for wealthy slaveholders to take away economic opportunity from non-slaveholding Americans. The third problem with expansion was that it would upset the balance between free states and slave states. Neither the North nor the South wanted each other to gain more representation in Congress. Ultimately, these sectional issues would directly impact the outbreak of the American Civil War.
Question#3: The Compromise of 1850 was one of the most important agreements in U.S. history. How did the compromise resolve sectional issues? How might “popular sovereignty” be problematic in the years following the Compromise of 1850?
The Missouri compromise helped solve the issue of slavery for a few years. In 1820 with the
admission of Missouri to the Union, of course the issue of slavery came up again. Missouri wanted to enter the union as a slave state, and the north did not like this because it would upset the even balance of free and slave states. There was already a great deal of tension between the North and the South. The South was highly agricultural and wanted to keep slavery but the North, which was far more industrial, saw this “abnormal institution” as unnecessary. One way the government tried to limit the tension was by keeping the number of slave and Free states equal. Popular sovereignty was greatly supported, mainly by Stephen Douglas. It was a common idea before the Civil War. Missouri at the time was a slave state, and because of popular sovereignty, Missourians were able to go into Kansas and vote for Kansas being a slave state, although Kansas wanted to be free. This eventually began the whole “Bleeding Kansas” because Kansas people would fight at the border. It also divided the rest of the Louisiana Purchase into slave and free territory.
Question # 3
The compromise of 1850 admitted California as a free state, prohibited slave trade in Washington D.C. , permitted slaveholding in Washington D.C, and passed the fugitive slave law. So admitting California as a free state and prohibiting the slave trade in Washington D.C made the north happy and allowing slavery to happen in Washington D.C and passing the fugitive slave law made the south happy. Popular sovereignty might be problematic in the years to come because popular sovereignty means that the government has to cater to the people only and if the north does not want slavery and the south does then it is going to be hard for the government to make a decision if they are basing their laws only on the people.
Question 3: The Compromise of 1850 was one of the most important agreements in U.S. history. How did the compromise resolve sectional issues? How might “popular sovereignty” be problematic in the years following the Compromise of 1850?
The Compromise of 1850’s did not resolve sectional issues, it merely just tamed the “impending crisis.” The Compromise alleviated sectional tension by proposing provisions that favored both pro-slavery South and the pro-industrial North. It called for the admission of California as a free-state, t\counteracting the addition of this free-sate, by proposing the construction of federal territories in the rest of the lands acquired from Mexico without restrictions on slavery. Additionally, proposed to abolish the slave trade, but not slavery itself, eliminating any opposition from wither side. “Popular sovereignty” might problematic in years following the compromise, since it will heavily upset the balance of free-states to slave-states, creating more sectional tension between the North and the South. It will also sluggish the readmission of new territories, due to the conflict of the news states being either slave or free, being decided by the population of that specific territory.