Courtney+C.+-+MW+-+SP12

Mexican War Courtney Crowley Wimmer APUSH 2/16/12

The sectional interest of New Englanders, southerners, and westerners over the Mexican War and its aftermath was very crucial to the future of the young nation. The disagreements of the closed minded people from the corners of the continent were not a good thing for a developing country. Where the settlers resided within the New World deeply affected their view points on many issues crucial to a country trying to establish itself. The Mexican War reflected the sectional interests to a great extent and ultimately ignited a fire that would eventually divide the nation (Hubbard).

Even before the Mexican War, a plan was proposed in order to diffuse the argument between the north and south in 1820. It was called the Missouri Compromise. It prohibited slavery above all the land north of 36 degrees 30 minutes latitude (Effects). It admitted both Missouri and Maine as a free state (Effects). The compromise solved the immediate issues but did not solve the slavery problem as a whole (Effects). The arguments continued.

The southerners were for the gain of land where slaves could be used for agriculture, but the New Englanders were against it. New Englanders wanted more free states. The Southerners considered their slaves’ property, so they viewed any attempt to limit the expansion of slavery as a threat to their constitutional rights. It violated their right to do as they pleased with the property they owned, the slaves (Hubbard). Some southerners wanted the Missouri Compromise to be amended in order to accommodate the new territories that have been gained from the Mexican War (Hubbard). The western states truly did not have a definite opinion (Hubbard). They did not have much to add to history during the Mexican War. The only people in the west that wanted to own slaves were Southern Californians. Although, the westerners were the ones that benefited from the expanding territories, the decisions seemed to be made by the sectionalists of New England and the South. The westerners did not support sectionalism and remained neutral throughout the unfolding events.

The Mexican War begun in 1846 and lasted one and a half years. It ranged throughout Texas, New Mexico, California, and even in some parts of Mexico. The United States won an easy victory and was now starting to expand its territory. A benefit to the triumph was the discovery of gold in California (Hubbard). Within months, a frantic gold rush was well under way. The push westward grew at such a rapid pace that politicians were forced to bring law and order to the establishment in the west. The way the new states were to be governed raged quarrels within the nation.

The issue of slavery throughout the nation created many questions when it came to the Constitution. Some believed that since slaves were property, they should be protected in all areas by the Constitution. This meant the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and the slaveholders could do what they wanted with the salves (Hubbard). The northerners disagreed. They argued that the regulation of slaves was in the power of the federal government, which gave Congress the authority to “make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States” (Hubbard). The Constitution gave the federal government the right to abolish the slave trade, but no power to regulate or destroy the idea of slavery where it already existed. Also, it said nothing about the use of slaves in new states. A search for the middle ground continued to become more frantic. However, because both the north and the south wanted expansion, a compromise was possible.

The Wilmot Proviso of 1846 was proposed to ban all African Americans, slaves or free men, from any territory obtained from the victory of Mexican War (Hubbard). This appealed to many northerners because it reserved more land for the free whites. At first, the proposal was approved by the House, but politicians defeated it in the Senate when voting in Congress took place. Their sectional opinions rather than party opinions were shown (Hubbard). A suggested compromise admitted California to the union as a free state, and defined the rest of the Mexican territory into the states of Utah and New Mexico (Effects). It was called the Compromise of 1850. It also allowed for the states to decide whether or not they wanted to allow or forbid slavery (Effects). This made the New Englanders happy, but also benefited the southerners. The compromise set up the Fugitive Slave Law, which allowed southerners to go and get runaway slaves that once belonged to them (Effects). The compromise added to the north’s power but at the same time allowed southerners to take control of the slaves. In the end it helped neither party.

The divided arguments across the nation effected the aftermath of the Mexican War greatly. The crucial decisions that had to be made in order to govern a growing country became hard to establish. The sectional tensions between the New Englanders, southerners and westerners did not help the state of the Union. The debates continued, which ultimately forced the United States to separate eventually leading to civil war.

Work Cited "Effects of the War." //Mexican-American War//. Web. 16 Feb. 2012. <http://ncamel214.tripod.com/id4.html>.

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Hubbard, Matthew. "Sectional Interest During and After the Mexican War." //Yahoo! Voices –// //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Voices.yahoo.com //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">. Web. 16 Feb. 2012. <http://voices.yahoo.com/sectional-interest- <span style="color: black; font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">during-after-mexican-war-172869.html?cat=37>.