American Expansionism and Slavery in the 19th Century - Essay Example

It bore witness to the pitting of Americans against each other and eventually, put to a challenge the country’s strength as a nation. A scrutiny of the events that led to the Civil War, the war that ultimately determined the fate of slavery in the country, showed that as early as the 1800s, the issue of slavery was already starting to simmer, but was kept under control with negotiations for its extension to new American territories. As time passed by, however, negotiations gradually grew difficult as factions began polarizing triggered by events that defined each state’s values and interests. This was particularly evidenced during the westward territorial expansion of the US in the early 19th century. These events cultivated and advanced the schism that ultimately led to the Civil War between the North and the South.  

The Louisiana Purchase, for example, which was negotiated by the Jefferson government in 1803 with Napoleon Bonaparte, became an issue of contention between anti-slavery and pro-slavery in the halls of Congress. Petitions from various northern states, which were anti-slavery, urging the prohibition of slavery in the newly purchased territory, were delivered both in Congress and the Senate by their representatives. Foremost among the anti-slavery speeches were delivered by the representatives from Illinois and Pennsylvania. Representative Cook of Illinois proposed the granting of the Louisiana territory to slave owners in exchange for abandoning the practice. On the other hand, pro-slavery states such as Smith of South Carolina and Smyth of Virginia fiercely defended slavery as a natural state of condition of black people (Shearer 2004).

Another historical event within the same period that saw the clash of the anti-slavery North and pro-slavery south was when Missouri applied for statehood in 1820.  Most Missouri settlers at that time came from the south, bringing with them their slaves. Immediately, the anti-slavery north representatives objected to the application unless Missouri ban all future slave imports and institute a gradual slave freedom scheme, and the Senate rejected to deliberate and vote on the issue at all. In what is known as the Missouri Compromise, Missouri was finally allowed statehood conditioned on the term that all future slavery north of the southern Missouri boundary will be banned. The Compromise essentially resulted in the creation of a fictional westward north-south line that governed the state of slavery in all of the US. The anti-slavery north was at least gratified that most of the territories included in the Louisiana Purchase were north of said boundary (Bergad 2005).

The Missouri Compromise turned out to have left some issues unsettled that eventually emerged when Missouri’s constitution included a provision that called for the exclusion of free Negroes and mulattoes from its jurisdiction. Once again, debates in Congress and the Senate over slavery became alive. In a subsequent negotiation known as the Second Missouri Compromise, Missouri was finally admitted for statehood with an added provision as a caveat that the provision in issue shall not imply blanket authority to enact laws that impair the rights of citizens (Bergrad 2005).

The Texas application in 1836 as a slave state for admission into the Union was another instance of an overt and passionate clash between pro and anti-slavery factions that eventually led to the Civil War. It was some thought, the straw that eventually broke the camel’s back. Texas was a chief producer of cotton and this industry was largely hinged on slavery labor. When Texas was admitted into the union as a slave state, the feeling of antipathy between pro and anti-slavery near their boiling point and the sure path to the civil war was determined (Bergrad 2005).

The California admission into the Union mirrored the severe clash of the pro and anti-slavery factions. In 1848, California petitioned for admission into the Union as a free state. Its constitution was glaringly anti-slavery. With the conclusion of the war with Mexico, the southerners were on tenterhooks with the perceived aggressive stance of the northerners to ban slavery. The Compromise of 1850 sought to pacify the restless south with the agreement that the admission of California does not settle the issue of slavery in other states. Moreover, the Fugitive Act of 1850 was also enacted, which placed the responsibility of apprehending runaway slaves in the North with the law enforcement of the North as well as cooperating with the south in such cases. The northerners were further agitated when the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which abolished the Missouri Compromise. Earlier, no less than the Supreme Court rendered unconstitutional Congress’ imposition to abolish slavery on the territories. Eventually, the Civil War broke out between the pro-slavery north and the anti-slavery south (Bergrad 2005).  

The westward territorial expansion of the US started to bring to the fore the schism that divided the pro-slavery South and the anti-slavery North. The Louisiana Purchase, the Missouri Compromise, the Texas and California petitions for admission into the Union, the Compromise Act of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act, all underscored the split between the two opposing factions.