Mexican War Conflict Analysis

1436 Words 6 Pages
What did national parties often do to maintain national unity in regards to the slavery issue? Generally-speaking, the national parties essentially turned a blind eye towards the slavery issue, in order to bar further tensions from erupting. Portrayed in yet another manner, such parties, whether it be the Whigs or Democrats alike, failed to explicitly embrace the issue by adopting a particular standpoint. Evidence from the text that further bolsters this claim is shown when the authors state, “To politicians, the wisest strategy seemed to be to sit on the lid of the slavery issue and ignore the boiling beneath. Even so, the cover bobbed up and down ominously in response to the agitation of zealous northern abolitionists and impassioned southern …show more content…
Venturing deeper into the specifics, as a result of the war, a significant debate, pertaining to the incorporation of slavery in the lands that span the Mexican Cession, arose. Evidence from the text that further supports this claim is shown when the authors state, “The acquisition of this huge domain raised anew the burning issue of extending slavery into the territories. Northern anti-slaveryites had rallied behind the Wilmot Proviso, which flatly prohibited slavery in any territory acquired in the Mexican War. Southern senators had blocked the passage of the proviso…” (Cohen & Kennedy 381). The quote above exemplifies how the Mexican War gave birth to the proposal of the noteworthy Wilmot Proviso, which ultimately prohibited slavery in the lands of the Mexican Cession. The tenacious viewpoints, on the behalf of the North and South alike, are commonly associated with the amendment as the American South feared a plummet in slavery’s widespread popularity. In brief, the Mexican War indisputably played a key role in the development of the slavery …show more content…
In further elaboration upon this reality, the party’s members fervidly embraced the essence of the Wilmot Proviso and thus greatly advocated, in favor of the amendment. This is, of course, not to mention the fact that it exhorted the federal government to render aid, with the sole purpose of fostering internal improvements and luring settlers. Evidence from the text that further bolsters this claim is shown when the authors state, “It [Free Soil Party] appealed to Democrats resentful of Polk’s settling for part of Oregon while insisting on all of Texas—a disparity that suggested a menacing southern dominance in the Democratic party. It also contained a large element of ‘conscience Whigs,’ heavily influenced by the abolitionist crusade, who condemned slavery on moral grounds” (Cohen & Kennedy 382). The quote above sheds light upon the fundamental beliefs that comprised the basis of the Free Soil Party. To add to this, it is integral to note that they often re-instated how free whites were denied of “free soil” and upward mobility in the West, thanks to slavery. In brief, the Free Soil Party adopted a significant number of

Related Documents